BS: More Politics

Subject: More Politics
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 02:00 PM

Twice, I have written absolute raving posts about big business vs. big government and both have simply disappeared without a trace. Maybe I spent too much time as "inactive" and got bumped off; maybe it was grace – there were things in both posts that I would have regretted saying. I'm starting this thread with a long rant; read it, if you'd like. Comment as you will. If neither, have a great day.


What has gotten my dander up is the crowing that is being done by the republican supporters of "free market capitalism" as the solution to most, if not all, of the problems in the US. The contention (if I have it right) is that freeing market forces from the restrictions placed on it by government will solve problems like bad schools, expensive medical care, and poverty, particularly among the elderly. Along with this love for private sector solutions is an attitude that government by its very nature does not, and indeed, cannot function as well as private business and should be severely limited in scope.

To quote JFK, "Let me say this about that".

The "Private Sector" argument always comes back to the contention that it's the competitive nature of the free market that keeps the system honest, efficient and effective. The unstated assumption that goes with this is that business success automatically works for the general welfare. I find two problems with this.

First, it assumes the existence of a free market. In reality, the playing field has always tilted toward those who enter a market with more wealth and resources. Those who start out well capitalized always start out ahead and have generally acted to maintain their advantage, at times through illegal means. Second, it ignores the reality that capitalism rewards the capitalists first; benefits to society are peripheral and often only grudgingly allowed. Capitalism is an exclusionary system. History has shown that in many cases it has yielded its benefits only after strikes, violence and near revolution by those left out. When push comes to shove it is the bottom line of the capitalist that is served, not the common good.

The other argument for private sector solutions over public sector ones points to the inefficiency of government solutions. It is generally maintained that there is greater accountability in the private sector. Fingers are pointed at government workers, who either don't know or don't care, as if people who work for the government automatically become lazy and stupid, while the promise of wealth in the private sector automatically inspires people to achieve great things. The fact of the matter is that when put in a position where their goals are clear, resources are provided and performance rewarded people do a good job, regardless of their employer.

Why do private sector programs appear to be better than public sector ones? They are more focused. They have clear mandates and fewer STAKEHOLDERS (good corporate buzzword). The individuals who are responsible for determining their direction, goals and methods are only responsible to a few stockholders (as opposed to the entire electorate). Even with bi-partisan support, government programs OF NECESSITY try to serve too many purposes simultaneously. Most of all, they are subject to POLITICS. This, in my opinion is how government programs easily lose focus and effectiveness.

Does this mean we should abandon government altogether? Not at all. There are some things that we as a society require that are better provided by cooperation than competition and that cannot be subjected to bottom line thinking. There are necessities of life that should not be determined by their profitability. Postal service, education, comprehensive health care, food and energy are among these. Our cross-country railroads and utilities were only made possible through the co-operative efforts of public and private sectors. Attempts to artificially create competition – first in the phone companies and now in the utilities – have been a huge failure; prices have not been reduced, service has declined, and the range of options offered has narrowed, not broadened. To insist that the free market is the solution to our problems is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

Now, for those of you who are going to scream "communism", I have one more thing to say. I am not a communist, I am a socialist and a federalist. I don't believe that people are inherently greedy and corrupt. Underneath it all everyone wants recognition for what they do and for their needs to be met. And that's about it. Free market, "sink or swim" Capitalism promotes fear and greed (remember: accumulating surplus wealth is an advantage in a Capitalist system). No one needs to be a billionaire. No one deserves to be one. No one person's contribution to society is that great that his posterity should be set up for generations. Not Bill Gates. Not Michael Jordan. No child is born lazy or stupid. Somehow between the time they are born with all that energy and curiosity and the time they get their first government job this system bleeds all the initiative out of them. We have done this to ourselves.

Marx didn't want to set up a communist state to battle capitalism (that was Lenin's idea). He said that at some point, when capitalism reached an advanced state, it would evolve into communism. He was describing what he saw as a natural progression. What happened recently in the USSR and Eastern Europe wasn't the victory of Capitalism and Democracy – it was the failure of totalitarian greed and corruption. There is a real "Third Way". (it may not be Tony Blair's). It's time for us to quit calling each other names and arguing over the scraps that the Bossman so graciously throws our way and figure out something better.

Sorry for being s

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: mousethief
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 02:36 PM

Good points, Bart!

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 03:13 PM

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Sounds like a very fair way to live, right? There is only one fly in the ointment..no allowance for greed. Greed, the grease in the wheels of capitalism. I only saw one error Bart..Wasn't it Nixon who said "Let me say this about that"??

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 03:39 PM

Bart, from my various postings in Art Theime's "big government" thread, you know where I stand on this. I'm with you all the way. A truly "free" (completely unrestrained) market is just the law of the jungle applied to economics. Now, the law of the jungle does some good -- it is the driving force behind evolution -- but an awful lot of harm is done to individuals in the process. Since we don't want that kind of harm to be done (mass poverty, starvation, etc.), we have to impose some limits and controls on the free market. That's where government comes in.

Like the ancient Greeks, I believe that in our lives and institutions we should always strive for balance. Good governance involves balancing the public and private sectors against each other, finding the optimal level of participation by each that will serve the interests of the society as a whole. I'm not smart enough to always identify the perfect balance point between different forces in our society, but I'm pretty confident that we'll never find it by glorifying private industry and trashing government. We need both.

Yes, Kendall, I believe that was Nixon. Usually it was followed by some comment about "making this perfectly clear..."

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Hollowfox
Date: 26 Oct 00 - 04:01 PM

Amen, Bartholomew. Three years ago, I was in a training session to learn how to use Intrest Based Bargaining to negotiate my union's contract. It's a good system, and I recommend it. The idea is that if you can get the two sides to see a contract proposal as a solution to a mutual problem, then everybody's more likely to get more of what's needed in the contract. But... one of the exercises was to divide up the trainees into two groups representing competing home heating fuel companies. We were to come up with monthly fuel prices within a certain price range for the best benefit of all. It took forever, because my team kept taking the season into account, undercutting the other company, etc. It turned out that the "lesson" we were to learn was that if both companies charged the maximum rate, we (the companies) would get the maximum benefit. The fictitious customers weren't supposed to be part of the equation. Chilling.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 12:14 AM

Thanks for the contributions. Some things you just have to get off your chest.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Frankham
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 10:05 AM

Open letter to Ralph Nader. > >Dear Mr. Nader: > >By now you've probably heard every damned argument in the country about why >you should get out of the presidential race or stay in the presidential >race, but forgive me if, for a moment, I bend your ear one more time. > >I'm not a member of, or advocate for, any political party or anyone's >campaign. And I agree with you completely that Al Gore's policies on >economic issues are nothing a progressive can jump up and cheer about -- >although he's not quite as rotten as his opponent on questions like the >minimum wage. But there are two things I'd like you to consider. > >The first is the fact that George W. Bush is the stalking horse for the most >reactionary social and economic forces in this country: the radical >religious right, the rabid anti-choice movement, the NRA, and those who >would further dismantle the structures of environmental and worker-safety >legislation that have been painfully built in the past three decades. These >forces have kept quiet, understanding that the majority of the American >public doesn't support most of their programs, but they've also mobilized >their people for bloc voting. Even if Bush's inclinations weren't already in >their direction (this is, after all, the man who proclaimed "Jesus Day in >Texas"), he would, if elected, take office owing a substantial debt to these >people. Do you really want to help put the reins of government into those >hands? > >The second is a simple, tactical question: Do you want to carry the >oppobrium for making the election of George W. Bush possible? And do you >want to tar the progressive forces in the country with that same oppobrium? >For as someone who grew up on the left, and who has watched the ups and >downs of progressive movements in this country since I was a child in the >1950s, I can say with certainty that the deepest problem with the American >left is its inability to work constructively with like-minded liberals and >moderates toward the achievement of its goals. For reasons I've always >thought were specious, the left in this country has usually preferred being >alone and powerless but ideologically pure to actually getting anything >done. I still recall my New Left buddies in college refusing to help elect >progressive candidates -- the headline in one paper read "We Are Not >McGovernable" -- or support progressive labor leaders. This inability to >form >coalitions (or even work with each other) has kept the left marginalized >most of my life, except for the brief period of the civil rights and >anti-Vietnam war movements in the sixties -- and even those movements were >eventually torn apart by factionalism. > >If your candidacy leads directly to the election of George W. Bush as >president, I doubt seriously that the American people would rush to the left >when his policies turned sour, or when he began paying back his debts to the >reactionaries who helped propel him into office. Instead, I think there >would be a massive reaction *against* the left, in the person of yourself >and your supporters, as the people whose short-sightedness allowed this >knave to take power. After a career in which you have achieved great things, >is that really how you want to be remembered? And do you really want to >bring the rest of us down with you? > >Thanks for your time. >Paul J. Stamler >St. Louis, MO > >

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 10:17 AM

What always amazes me is that, right after the election, the losing candidate immediately pledges to help the man whom, two days before, he predicted would destroy civilization as we know it if he got into office.
Has anyone else noticed this phenomenum?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 10:35 AM

Frankham, well writ.

I saw Ralph N. on Good Morning America today and Charlie posed your question to him directly. His response "I am not concerned with that". He went on to explain that he was trying to build a movement, period. So there's your answer.

A little prognostication on what happens after the election:
If Gore wins: Bush goes back to Texas. The Republican party quits pretending and swings to the radical right. Nader becomes John the Baptist, Millenium Edition, shouting warnings and giving liberal baptisms in the poloitical wasteland. In America it's four more years like the last eight years

If Bush wins: Gore goes back to the campaign trail, debating anyone who'll have it (except Nader). Bill Clinton goes to work trying to figure out if he can legally run again in '04. Nader becomes the Ross Perot of the left, building a huge but ineffectual organization, all "sound and fury, signifying nothing". Tax breaks all around, a two year hangover (like Reagan had) and a gradual slip into recession.

If Nader wins: Global warming is solved due to the effect of hell having frozen over. Corporate America closes up shop and moves to Mexico where "the government knows how to play ball"; they issue a statement to the effect that they were planning to do it anyway and should now be referred to as "Corporate Central America". The Cubs win the pennant.

Pat Buchanan wi - I can't even write the words, much less entertain the thought.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 12:51 PM

I don't know if you folks have been hearing the Pat Buchannan radio ads. I mentioned them here about two months ago, but they've gone from really sad and irritating to mind boggling and funny (as long as he stays at one percent!). Now, Pat is intoning that "Christmas is gone"(!!) "English (read 'murrican) is being taken out of our schools", oh, and on and on. If ever Pat believed he wasn't appealing completely to the lunatic far-right, he's sure making an effort to grab them now. He's making Rush Limbaugh look like Norman Thomas!

By the way, Frank: Heather and I were hosting Sanfrancisco Mudcatter Pam Swan this week, and in the middle of a conversation she said "You know Rick, I'd love you to meet a buddy of mine...you'd really like him, he's a musician/scientist...name's Bernie Krauss! Geez, you Weavers is everywhere!

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Frankham
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 01:37 PM

Bartholomew,

Makes perfect sense to me! Prognostications noted and accepted here.

Rick, Bernie was a synthesist for Paul Beaver before he passed away. He was a recording producer and I guess is still doing it. Haven't seen him since '63. The Weavers are a big big family. I think they are large enough to include many of the folk groups and musicians who they have sired or mothered as they case may be. In a way, I think that we (Mudcatters and everyone else in the folk song movement) are all Weavers.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 02:05 PM

Am not. I'm a knitter.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 02:34 PM

Thanks for that, Frank! I like the sounds of all of us Mudcatters being Weavers, by extension or association!

Now, I received this from another Mudcatter, and I am not saying anything for or against the letter Frank posted, just adding another perspective of someone else to the mix on Nadar:

From the NY Times Op Ed page, 10-26-00:

Third Party, Mainstream Hopes

By BARBARA EHRENREICH

KEY WEST, Fla.:As Election Day approaches with the major

candidates in a dead heat, Democratic denunciations of Ralph Nader supporters grow louder and more bitter. We are accused of disloyalty and irresponsibility, of ignoring the differences between the candidates and of being willing to throw the election to George W. Bush so that we can indulge in a meaningless gesture. Or, on the assumption that Nader supporters are all of the upper middle class, we are mocked for having the "luxury" of contributing to a Republican victory for which the vulnerable poor will suffer.

But support for Mr. Nader is only one small sign of a much larger growing alienation from the electoral process and the two parties that benefit from it. Polls show Mr. Nader attracting 5 percent or less of the vote in half a dozen tightly contested states. Meanwhile, much of the electorate seems unable, even after three debates, to detect any gripping differences between the two major candidates.

An even starker sign of alienation is that a majority of eligible voters are unlikely to vote ó more than 50 percent stayed home in the 1996 presidential election. The working poor, who supposedly have the most at stake in this or any election, are especially well represented among those who now abstain from voting.

Not only do Nader supporters represent an extremely small proportion of the politically alienated, but among Naderites only about a quarter are normally Democratic voters, according to a recent Reuters/MSNBC poll; the rest are independents and Republicans. Among those of us who have voted Democratic for most of our lives, the mood is less of spiteful defiance than of sorrow. We didn't choose to abandon the Democratic Party in its hour of need; the party chose to abandon us.

Our parents or grandparents, who were, in many cases, yellow-dog, blue-collar Democrats, would barely recognize the party of Bill Clinton and Al Gore as their own. To summarize the downside of the Clinton-Gore record: They failed to lift the minimum wage even up to the poverty level, although executive pay soared to more than 400 times that of the average working person. They pursued a trade policy rejected by unions and a majority of Americans. They blew their chance to create a national health insurance program, offering instead a plan that favored the big insurance companies. Mr. Gore's vision of health reform is even more constricted, consisting of little beyond proposed extension of Medicare coverage to prescription drugs. The Clinton-Gore administration has presided over a stunning expansion of the prison system ó necessitated by an increasingly senseless, and thoroughly bipartisan, war on drugs.

For many Nader supporters, especially the feminists among us, the Democratic Party's biggest betrayal was the so-called "reform" of welfare. Instead of the generously financed welfare-to-work program that he initially proposed, Mr. Clinton signed an exceedingly punitive bill that essentially leaves the poorest single mothers and their children at the mercy of labor market, where entry-level wages remain at about $7 an hour. Mr. Gore boasts of his advocacy of welfare reform, but Deborah Leff, president of America's Second Harvest, a consortium of food banks, has said that food pantries all over the country are unable to meet the "torrent of need."

The increasingly ugly fallout from the changes in welfare undermines the argument that a vote for Ralph Nader is an upper-middle class indulgence: It is not clear that the poor would fare very well under another four years of Democratic rule.

Yes, like most Democrats who vote for Mr. Nader, I will be sorry if George Bush defeats Al Gore. I do see differences between the two candidates, not least in the kind of the Supreme Court appointments they are likely to make. But in the case of a Bush victory, don't expect me to be apologetic. It's not my fault if Mr. Gore has refused to stand up for the populist principles that might draw America's disenchanted majority back to the polls.

I see the Nader campaign as a chance to prod the Democratic Party to the left and, beyond that, to re-energize American democracy. Of all the candidates currently running, only Mr. Nader addresses the alienation of the American majority: the role of big money in elections and the need for new political parties to challenge the all-too-similar Democrats and Republicans.

A vote for Mr. Nader is neither a vote for Mr. Bush nor a vote nihilistically thrown away. For old-fashioned Democrats and adherents of a vigorous democracy generally, it's a statement of affirmation and hope.

Barbara Ehrenreich is author of the forthcoming "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in Boom-Time America."

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: JamesJim
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 02:40 PM

While I don't agree with him, I admire and respect Ralph Nader, because he is "real" and he is steadfast in his beliefs. I also admire those who stand with him. These folks are "honest" liberals; something that Clinton and Gore simply do not understand.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 02:43 PM

There was an interesting editorial on the radio (NPR) this morning about voter participation.

The woman said basically, if you're just going to vote by flipping a coin or by who wore the nicer suit in the debates or some other stupid (my word) criterion, you do the nation a favor by not voting at all.

Further, she said, the fewer people vote, the more MY vote counts.

She told an anecdote of a woman she heard, days after an election, who couldn't remember who she had voted for; "maybe the old one." She asked if this kind of mindless (again, my word) voting is what blacks, women, etc. fought hard to win over the years this nation has existed.

She also opined that along with the right TO vote comes the right to NOT vote.

Maybe not earthshattering stuff, but an interesting slant, and not one I've heard recently if ever.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 04:06 PM

I have not contributed before to any of the recent political threads, but it's getting late and I am getting scared.

Say what you will about "A vote for Nader is a vote for ---" whatever, but…

If it turns out that Gore loses this election, and especially if he loses by a margin smaller than whatever percentage Nader gets, then I personally will be very angry with everyone who voted for Nader.

I'm saying this as someone who voted for Gene McCarthy in 1968 (my first ballot) and nearly voted for John Anderson in 1980. The result was 8 years of Richard Nixon (and Gerald Ford) in the first case and 8 years of Ronald Reagan in the second.

I don't see any reason to expect that the result will be better this time.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 05:09 PM

Right on Jim. Its nice to be an idealist, but, this is the real world we live in. I dont like Gore..BUT I dont have to sleep with him..he is the lesser of two evils. Nader may be an idealist, but he cant win. Even if he did, he would have NO support in congress. We would have at least 4 years of gridlock.
Every time we send a republican to congress we insure that they will keep those right wing wackos like Graham, Helms, Thurmond and Lott in positions of power. George preaches that the democrats have had 8 years and done nothing. He fails to mention that the republicans in congress have fought at every turn anything that would benefit the working class. You Nader supporters..I applaude your standing up for what you believe. Just remember, if Bush wins we will have the NRA in the white house and a bunch of Clarence Thomas' on the Supreme Court. I hope your idealism keeps you comfortable when that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Skeptic
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 05:14 PM

As mentioned, its all about greed. The idea of fair and open competition as a foundation of capitalism that all my conservative friends keep touting is an illusion. The competition exists because the government steeped in and stopped a few men from owning the world. The greed to own it all resulted in some amazing engineering and technological advances. And some equally dramatic abuses. The government stepped in and mandated competition.

There are big businesses that operate under the idea of enlightened self interest. A few. When pinned down, what most people I know mean by "free enterprise" are community based businesses that are involved and responsive to their communities. Most of them have under 200 employees. Big buisness is something to laugh at in Dilbert. Except Dilbert is all too close to reality.

Not to flame Microsoft, but it's a good example of capitalism and big business at its most typical. Building a company from nothing to dominate a whole field of technology. This was a period of "get government off the backs of business" and they used the freedom in the best spirit of capitalistic growth. I used to be in the Industry and their tactics seemed clearly not in the 'spirit of competition".

Microsoft paid well and expected 60+ hours a week from employees. Programmers were expected to work on their vacations and the company paid to have high speed data lines run into their homes. They leveraged their operating system to freeze out their competitors. The results? As a product goes, Windows and MS Apps were and are minimally adequate. Is that the best capitalism has to offer? Adequate? Can government do any better? Well, it was government that developed the foundation of the computer revolution. The needs of the military and the space program drove the basic development (okay, its simplified but why spoil an argument with a lot of boring facts.)

Back in the bad old days, when business was over regulated and "competition was stifled", there were things like Bell Labs, PARC and a lot of basic research being done by big business. A lot of that went away with deregulation. One reason might be that now that government isn't holding them back, it was so much easier to buy out the competition than develop a better product and win by merit.

Regards John

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Frankham
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 07:34 PM

Barbara Ehrenreich's view is prevalent but I think unrealistic. The reason that Clinton hasn't been able to put much into action is that he has had to contend with a Republican Congress. Can you imagine what would happen to Nader with a Republican Congress? The idea that there can be bi-partisan support in the Bush campaign is laughable and more so if Nader happened to make it.

I disagree that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush.Barbara may not be apologetic if Bush gets in, but this view will be one that contributes to the dismantling of the existing programs that are helpful.

We don't really know too much about what these politicians will really do when in office. The only information we have to go on is what they offer in their stump speeches. One thing is clear, things are better off under Clinton then they were under Reagan and Bush for most Americans. Gore is more apt to continue the policies of the Clinton administration than Bush is.

Gore is far from ideal as a candidate as far as I'm concerned but Nader, despite his idealism and accomplishments is inadvertently running a negative campaign in light of a possible Bush victory.

I agree with Kendall.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 27 Oct 00 - 08:47 PM

Skeptic, you're just mad 'cause they wouldn't give you a vice-presidency, a corner office, and a cute secretary.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: JamesJim
Date: 28 Oct 00 - 12:07 AM

Kendall, as Dubya says, "good people can disagree." You mention those on the "right" who are pains in the ass and I fully agree. I won't waste space here listing the same kind of idiots on the left....you know who I'm taling about. "Radical" anything scares the hell out of me.

The lesser of two evils? I don't get into that stuff. We could argue for years about past presidents. The fact is, we really don't know what we're going to get until we've got it. Nixon was a crook. Johnson was a dishonest pig. Clinton? Don't get me started. It seems to me that Al Gore would fit right in with these less than glorious leaders. However, I'll wait to see what he really does once he has power (if indeed he's lucky enought to win). Same for George Bush.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 28 Oct 00 - 02:00 AM

Aw Jim, I don't think you have to worry a lot. You folks are getting all riled up for nothing. Don't als the polls show that Gore is way ahead. Relax and have another Guinness!

I'd like to think I'm wrong, but I think Gore has it sewed up. I came to this conclusion after reading all the Liberal posts on all the political threads. I can't imagine folks who share my philosophy could possibly be in the majority.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 28 Oct 00 - 07:11 AM

Clinton got caught. That was his mistake. Other than that, I am far better off now than I was 8 years ago. Nuff said. A. Lincoln said "Never change horses in the middle of the stream."

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Frankham
Date: 28 Oct 00 - 09:56 AM

Kendall, the big joke is that Clinton didn't do anything that Jack Kennedy didn't do a whole lot more of. Ol' Lyndon too. Clinton is a Kennedy boy and he figured his hand could also go into the "cookie" jar. As a New Englander, you probably know a good deal about the Kennedy's and their rise in Canadian Club whiskey.

Now Bush, I hear did inhale. He has been S.A.V.E.D.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 08:25 AM

Oh, he inhaled alright, thats why he has that nervous habit of sniffing when under pressure.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: JamesJim
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 03:38 PM

DougR, I hope you're WRONG! I'll leave you to figure that one out.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 29 Oct 00 - 08:59 PM

So Kendall,what you are saying is that as long as you make money on the deal, everything else is excusable. I take this to mean that you find the acquisition of money to be of great importance.
Therefore your claim to support the ideals of the Democratic Party is just so much smoke and you really vote your pocketbook. You sell your vote to the candidate whom you feel will do YOU the most good.Well,thats a step up from the ward boss paying you off outside the voting booth.
If gaining wealth is such a great good, then the Bill Gates' of the world must be the best people.
If Clintons only crime was getting caught, then , in fairness the same must be said of Nixon. Of course, Nixon had the good taste to resign.
And while we are on Clinton, I fail to see how you can credit him with the robust economy of the past decade when he couldn't get any of his giveaway programs passed. In fact, his own party rejected Hil...er HIS health-care plan. If he couldn't get his own party to go along with one of the cornerstones of the Dem. platform, how on earth can he be credited with leading the economny to prosperity with a hostile Congress?
I'll leave you to think on these things.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 04:49 PM

Jim: I gave it a lot of thought, and I think I know what you refer to. :>) DougR

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 05:03 PM

I'm quite able to think up my own words without help, Troll. At no point did I say what you claim I said. Clinton is a scumbag..morally. Is he any worse than Kennedy? Jefferson? Cleveland? Eisenhower? Roosevelt? Harding? History will judge him.
Of course he has had trouble getting things done..those congressional republicans have fought him tooth and nail for 8 years.
You mentioned Bill Gates, he has had more to do with the robust economy than either the democrats or the republicans.
Yes, he also lied..so did Nixon. So did the "Actor" but he gets an airport named after him!

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 30 Oct 00 - 10:42 PM

I was going to quote your posting of 28-Oct-00-07:11 but you can go back and check on it.I take your "far better off" line to mean financially and the Lincoln quote to mean that you look forward to 4 more years of the same policies tkat have left you "better off".
So even though you don't like Clinton, you will vote for his old running-mate so that the legacy can continue. Since you have previously stated that you did not care for Gore, it would be logical to assume from your statement of the 28th that you are voting your pocketbook; in other words, selling your vote to the highest bidder, the one that you feel will give you the best return.
This is something that both parties have used in the past. Never mind ideals, vote your pocketbook!
You go on to say that he hasn't been able to get things past the Republican Congress. I assume you mean things to help the poor and the working man. Check out NAFTA and GATT. They sure helped the working man.
I take it that you approve of Bill Gates from your statement about him. Maybe you should find out what kind of a man he is before you endorse him. To conclude, I had no intention of putting words in your mouth. I was merely giving my interpretation of your posting, stating what it meant to ME.
If your meaning was other than I have stated I feel sure you will enlighten us all.
By the way, it's the job of the opposition party to oppose. The Democrats have done it in the past and so have (and will) the Reoublicans.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 02:50 PM

Cartoon in the Boston Globe: Dubya leaves the voting booth. "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", he says. "So I voted for Nader."

Good editorial by James Carroll in the same paper, pondering why W's lack of depth and/or knowledge is considered part of his charm, rather than held against him as Dan Quayle's was, decides that it's America's response to the unwonted complexity of modern life, that the US people want to go back to a simpler time. He ends with the opinion that ultimately this election is not about Dubya's immaturity but the immaturity of the American people.

Whoo.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 03:15 PM

I still think that a lot is based on superficialities -- who has the nicer smile, who wears a better-fitting suit, who seems more "comfortable in his own skin". I'm for Gore, so I'll put this disclaimer right up front; this is NOT an unbiased opinion. Having said that, though, I think that this race would be a Gore runaway if Gore looked as comfortable with himself as Bush looks with himself. After the debates, the people who thought Gore had won referred to his command of the issues, while the people who thought Bush had won continually referred to his confident and likeable manner, not the substance of his answers. Contrast this with the usual description of Dan Quayle's debate manner -- that he "looked like a deer caught in the headlights" -- and you have your answer.

Bush has a breezy manner, and pleasant smile (frequent smirks notwithstanding), and generally seems more like someone you would want to share a drink with than Gore does. I think that is a significant reason for the number of votes he appears poised to get. It certainly isn't his command of the issues, or the soundness of the proposals he has put forward, and he knows it. So instead of basing his campaign on the issues, he bases it on intangibles such as "leadership" or "the ability to bring people together" -- stuff you can't call him on, basically. A week from now, we'll all find out whether it worked.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 04:10 PM

One man's opinion, Ebbie, just one man's opinion, though it probably is one you share. DougR

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 04:15 PM

I'll try once more Troll. Fact, I'm better off financially than I was 8 years ago. We all are, including Dick Cheney with his 3 billion dollar govt. contract which he failed to mention on the debate. However, if I thought that coke sniffing boozer really could restore dignity to the White House, I would vote for him, except for one thing, I know he would pack the supreme court with Clarence Thomas clones, and Roe v Wade is out the window.
In other words, I dont like Gore, I dont like Clinton and I dont like Dubbya even more.None of these birds is up to the dignity of the Oval Office. What do you expect from lawyers,& politicians? It will be interesting to see how you misinterpret what I just said.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 06:57 PM

Seems pretty clear to me, Kendall. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 07:08 PM

DougR, when you tout votes for Nader, are you saying that's who you are going to vote for? Just curious. :~)

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 08:02 PM

thanks Doug. Troll seems to delight in misunderstanding me.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 08:30 PM

I'm still bewildered by people saying that Bush comes across as an attractive and likeable man. I mean, I can imagine how someone might prefer his politics to those of Gore. I can envisage that they might dislike Gore even more - but actually liking that sniggering nudge-nudge barroom bore... In the words of Victor Meldrew "I just don't believe it."

If Bush wins I'll still refuse to believe anything other than that millions of Americans held their nose and voted for him the way they did for Nixon, for purely political reasons. At least nobody ever said Nixon was likeable did they?

The other thing that puzzles me is how people who have clearly thought about these things talk about third party candudates in a way that suggests they don't understand how the electoral system works. (They do it in my country too - I'm not making snide comments about Americans here.)

Except for those living in the small number of States where there is a close contest between Gore and Bush, it makes absolutely no difference who you vote for. You had much better vote for the person you like best, whoever that is. So far as electing a president the only thing that matters is the number of electoral votes he gets - it makes no difference whatsoever if he gets fewer popular votes than his opponenet, and that has happened several times already.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: thosp
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 09:12 PM

if Bush wins -- i will not be mad at people who voted for Gore -- if Gore wins i will not be mad at people who voted for Bush,Buchannen,Nader et al ----- for the most part i beleive that everyone here sincerely wants a better world -- and votes their conscience as best they can ---- so JimDixon i didn't put my vote for sale on e-bay and i'm not giving it to you or asking you to give your's to me ---- vote your concience -- i'll respect that you are doing your best -as you see it -- and so am i!

peace (Y) thosp
i'm for Nader

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 11:39 PM

Well, McGrath, I guess you can be grateful that regardless of who wins, you will be little affected, as a citizen of Great Britain. I am not implying that whoever is elected will not affect whatever happens everywhere in world, but certainly the domestic policies of either Gore, or Bush, will not affect anyone other than citizens of the U. S.

It seems to me that most Mudcatters are much more concerned with domestic policies than they are international ones. The right to choose; the influence of big business on government; campaign finance reform; the environment; universal healthcare; social security; possible future appointments to the Supreme Court, etc. are the programs that the anti-Bush forces here on the Mudcat have most often articulated as the ones that would be the most adversely affected if Bush is elected.

None of these programs will affect anyone other than the citizens of the U. S., regardless of who wins.

So, I would have to assume that your criticisms of Bush, and your strong support for Gore, are based on your concerns about future international policies. Is that correct? Just curious.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:46 AM

DougR, perhaps they want to see Gore win because a continued movement toward a more Socialist agenda would act as vindication of their own systems of government
"See? We're right.The US is doing it too."
If thats NOT it,then it MUST be as you said. Why else get involved.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:00 AM

At least under socialism you dont have old people having to choose between meds and food. Canadians bitch about their "Free medical care" but just you try to take it away!

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:12 AM

True. But by the same token you don't have a man dieing of cancer because the "system" didn't take an x-ray when he first came in, waited until he had lost forty pounds in less than a year and THEN found the metastasized tumor on his pancreass.
You don't have a carpenter waiting nearly a year for corrective surgery on his knee and in the meantime having to go up the ladders every day in agony because the "system" decided he could keep working.
The incidence of breast cancer deaths is significantly higher in England,for example, than it is here or so my English friends have told me. I don't know what it is in Canada.
Yes, we have problems-mostly brought on by corporate greed and government mis-managment- but I'd rather bee here than anywhere else I can think of. And yes, I have lived under the English system.The cases I mentioned are real.Both men are/were friends of mine.The "system" killed Colin and put Bob through ten months of hell.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:38 AM

Doug, I'm a Gore supporter who feels that his greater command of international politics is a big part of his (relative) appeal. It's true that domestic issues have dominated the campaign, but when it comes to foreign policy expertise Bush can't touch Gore -- no matter how much pre-debate coaching he gets on the correct pronunciation of the names of foreign leaders.

Also, however, I think that domestic policies and foreign policy are much more inter-related than some may think. Our military strength and international influence are largely dependent on our economic well-being and some degree of internal consensus. As Johnson found out during the Vietnam years, a President can't divorce his foreign policy agenda from his domestic agenda, or he'll lose support for both.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 09:04 AM

well, I can't let that one pass in good conscience. Troll, in a word, BULLSHIT. What you say never happens here just happened to my neighbor. Who was treated with analgesics and muscle relaxants for lung cancer, undiagnosed for over a year, despite the fact that he already had a history of cancer.

What he didn't have was money, so he continued going to his job at the textile mill until a few months before the end. I don't know what kind of insurance he got from them, it didn't do shit for him though.

The mill got its full measure of labor from him, the insurance company got its cut of his paycheck every week, the doctors who somehow failed to notice for over a year that he was dying of cancer, they got their cut, too.

All he got was, at the end, a hospice nurse to pump him full of morphine. Lucky him.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:28 AM

Then his doctors should be sued for medical malpractice and have their license to practice medicine revoked. I am aware that these things happen but they happen here with less frequency I believe.
If you will carefully read the second paragraph of my posting you will see that I am dead set against the big corporations whose only reason for existance is money. But I find that they are no worse that big government whose only goal is power.
I have looked at my wording and can see how you could have thought I meant "never". Otherwise, I stand by what I said.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Midchuck
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:39 AM

Troll said:

...I am dead set against the big corporations whose only reason for existance is money. But I find that they are no worse that big government whose only goal is power.

I think that says it all. I used to think that the only justification for either big business or big government was that each acted as a check on abuses by the other. Now that I'm coming to realize that each is in the pocket of the other, as it were, I tend to say a plague on both their houses. But I'm not sure what to do about it. Maybe start a Jeffersonian liberal party.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:35 AM

Things have taken a nasy turn when I agree with Troll!! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:10 PM

Kendall? Agreeing with ME?
Quick.Invest in ice-skate stock. Hell has surely frozen over.

troll...(evil chuckle)

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:53 PM

I'll buy a couple of shares, Troll. The only thing Kendall and I agree on is that we both like women! Sad for me that he is better looking than I am.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Songster Bob
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:27 PM

Someone mentioned up there somewhere that the Democrats had abandoned their principles and were more right-wing than the Republicans in the 50s, or words to that effect. Well, I think it's more a case of the party reacted to the expressed mood of the country, a mood orchestrated by the Republicans and their ability to use the "Big Lie" technique. Repeat anything often enough and enough people will start to believe it.

For instance, what words "go with" the word "liberal?" -- "Tax-and-spend," of course! But do "borrow-and-spend" automatically appear in your mind when you hear "conservative?" Nope. Ronald Reagan, at the same time he was spending us into the largest deficit heretofore known, was also "communicating" his ideals in clever and insidious fashion. And the people bought into it. Now, in the US, "lilberal" is practically a dirty word. No one is willing to call him/herself that, at least in the political arena. To get elected, you offer what you think the people will stomach. And "Big Government" becomes a catch-phrase (more a "Gotcha") so that even good ideas get shot down if they involve the Government doing them.

We privatize government now. Hire contractors to do the work (with an added margin for profits -- where's the savings in that?*) and shrink the government staff. Meanwhile, Congress (even the do-nothing Republicans) add tasks to the government's plate, but don't allow for more "government" (workers) to do the task. Then complain when government isn't "efficient."

Reagan "shrank" the government, remember? (Net change, BTW, was PLUS 2000 or so.) And no one can "get away with" adding many jobs back to it.

So, assuming you're anxious to get elected, and at least minimize the damage to the people, the environment, the economy, the country, you move right and "hijack" Republican "issues." Clinton & Co. have done this, and have done it well. But desiring to move the country leftward again could mean losing your "say," if supporting Nader means the right-wingers make much more of an advance.

If I lived in a state where Gore was sure to win, or sure to lose, I'd vote my heart. Since I don't, I'm voting my head. Sorry that's how it has to be, but that's how it is, as I see it.

Bob Clayton

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:37 PM

"I would have to assume that your criticisms of Bush, and your strong support for Gore, are based on your concerns about future international policies." Broadly correct Doug.

Though I'd jib at that "strong support for Gore" - it's like making a choice between warmed up porridge and a bad egg. Obviously I'd sooner have the porridge, but without any great enthusiasm. And I'd see Gore in that analogy as a plate of warmed up porridge, and Bush as a pretty whiffy bad egg.

The thing is, what happens in the world because America does or doesn't do something is quite important, and it's not just the war/peace issues. You sneeze, we all catch cold, you roll over in bed, and we all get dumped on the floor. It's like sharing a bedsitter with a buffalo. You want to see it happy and contented, because otherwise it's going to be a difficult relationship.

And from what I've read, Bush really does seem to have made a cod's arse out being governor of Texas, and all this stuff about reaching out to political opponents seems to add up to giving jobs to mates in other parties in order to get them on side, and not make problems about poor people getting screwed.

But all the domestic stuff is of course secondary for me. And maybe the most important thing is the environment, since unless America does something drastic about global warming and so forth, the floods we've got today are just the start of it. Well actually, whatever you do things are going to get far far worse anyway, but at least there is still time to put a limit on the damage.

And I can't envisage Bush doing much to help with that kind of stuff.

(Incidentally don't misunderstand my comments about the evident consensus in the press that Bush is likeable - there are politicians I largely agree with whom I think are detestable, and politicians I think are delightful whose ideas I deplore. I can quite understand why someone who agrees with Bush would vote for him - but I find it hard to believe that there are people who don't agree with him who would vote for him because they actually find him likeable...)

(And Songster Bob - check the Vote Nader thread for a way you can maybe have your cake and eat it...)>/A>

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:56 PM

Now, now, McGrath, you're not going to rabbit on about that old Global Warming myth, are you? The Republicans can explain to you how that Kyoto Accord is the work of the Communist Anti-Christ. Don't worry- Be happy!

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:09 PM

Doug, Am Not! and that aint all, you are much nicer.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:30 PM

Aw, shucks, Kendall.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:33 PM

Finally! I say something to which you have no answer- LOL

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:45 PM

DougR, after reading the article that McGrath linked to, will you still say, "That's just one man's opinion"? Or will you say, But your man does just as bad things"?

This polarization is becoming ludicrous. The sad part is that no doubt, no opinions or plans will be changed.

It's true that we survived the Nixon years (If we grant that Clinton damaged the mystique of the oval office, can we also agree that Nixon damaged the presidency?) and the Reagan years (What utter bosh the man spoke. IMO he set us, the American people, back a hundred years in encouraging the country to entertain a totally fanciful image of the world and our role in it. And if the country was doing as well as he claimed, why didn't we start paying our debts? When do you pay debts if you don't pay them when you're doing well?), and I suppose we'll survive the Bush2 years. But not without cost.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 06:34 PM

For anyone who is "voting their heart" next week -

Never use your heart when your head is the best tool for the job.

Bart

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 06:57 PM

How about your guts? (As in the case of the old fella who countered the slogan "In your heart you know he's right" of Goldwater with a placard saying "In your guts you know he's nuts" - I believe he got stomped, which was, I suppose, the most effective way of making sure his message got across.)

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:17 PM

Ebbie, it's just an article written by a reporter. Are you suggesting that reporters don't flavor stories with their own opinions? That this reporter was being totally objective? It would be a rare reporter, I think.

Yes, Nixon disgraced the office of the presidency, but he at least admit to what he did, and resigned. Clinton disgraced the office, lied to the American people, and spent a year stone-walling to those his Attorney General had appointed to investigate him. In my book Clinton committed a far more grevious affront to the American people than Nixon did.

Neither do I believe the Reagan years were all bad ones. There was a wall that divided Berlin, you will recall. The wall is no longer there, and Reagan can rightfully claim a large part of the credit for it coming down, in my opinion, (and the opinions of many others) and bringing an end to the cold war.

If Clinton is such a great president, and so much has been accomplished during the ClintonGore administration, why doesn't Gore have him out there touting Gore's election next week? Gore hasn't run on the eight year record of this administration, has he?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:31 PM

Oh boy Doug, are you asking for it!! Nixon resigned not out of a sense of deciency, but, rather because he knew he would be impeached if he didnt. He had no choice. And, as far as Ray-Gun claiming any credit for the Berlin wall coming down, who did he think he was? Joshua? did Gorbechev take it down because Raygun asked him to? Hell no! Communism started to die the day it was born, and two modern men were responsible for its funeral..Gorbechev and Lec Walesa. Raygun did shit!

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:01 PM

Ebbie, you're wasting your time. Its just Dougie's bait-and-switch act.'Facts' are positions he agrees with- those he refuses to accept are 'one man's opinion'. Check his previous posts- someone will post something, Dougie will say 'where's your research', it will be provided, Dougie will call it 'one man's opinion. When asked to do research himself,or provide a factual basis for his fantasies, he's 'done all he's going to do' or 'doesn't have time'. Its all on the record; check it out. And he calls Clinton "slick". And he really believes this crap, too!

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 09:12 PM

Those of us who listen to Nancy Reagan know that, for most of Ron's Presidency, he was suffering significantly from Alzheimer's Disease. There are books full of situations where he confused what had happened in movies with reality--still, if you were wealthy on the day he was elected, you were three times as wealthy when he left office--if you weren't wealthy when he was elected, you lost a lot of the value of your pension, your taxes had went up, and, in many cases, your job had disappeared in a leveraged buyout--can you imagine what he would have done if he'd had all his faculties?

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:03 PM

Stackley, I read McGrath's article and I read DougR's response. Nowhere did I see where he denied the stories the article put forth as facts. He simply said that the reporters opinion had flavored the story. This is probably true.
If a pro-Bush reporter had been assigned that story it would have read very differently even though the facts were the same. The bias of the newspaper may also figure into the equation.
As for his other faults, will you give us a few examples of times where he has "done all he's going to do" or said he "doesn't have time"? It should be easy for you since you have obviously checked it out yourself.
Thanks in advance.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:31 PM

CLICK

There's plenty more examples, but my time is at least as valuable as Doug's. You'll find them easily enough with the 'forum search' function.
Cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:41 PM

Yes, I rather thought that would be your answer.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:51 PM

Ah ha, Guest Stackley, (as Sherlock Holmes might say) you are a wolf in sheep's clothing! Guest Stackley is an imposter! You are, in fact, another person! I have encountered you before, Professor Moriorty! In bygone threads!

Kendall: you may feel that Nixon resigned because he had no other out, probably that is partially true. Nixon did a lot of good for the good old US of A, though, and though I think he was probably a son-of-a-bitch as a person, I think he did love his country. He could have drug the country through an impeachment process, which we know some recent President did, but he cared enough for his country, and his family, not to put them through that. History will judge Nixon. Clinton too. If either of us live another fifty years (in my case EXTREMELY doubtful)it would be interesting to read what is said about both of them. If there is, in fact, a life hereafter, I'll meet you in that great library in the sky and we will both look it up.

I heard Nader on Chris Matthew's "Hardball" tonight. Did anyone else. Matthews devoted the whole show, which was telecast from the campus of U. of Wisconsin to Nader.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:30 PM

Guest Stackley. I checked every thread on which you have posted.Nowhere did I find a place where DougR claimed he had done" all he's going to do " or where he" doesn't have time". It sounds to me like you are indulging in a little argumentum ad hominum.
I begin to understand your defense of Clinton but I find it a trifle pitiful that you resort to flaming instead of puting forth clear and compelling arguments.
I know that it must be frustrating; there is so little about the man that is defensible but try not to descend to the level of petty name-calling.
It does not lend weight to your defense.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:29 AM

where DougR claimed he had done" all he's going to do " or where he doesn't have time".Actually, Troll, DougR has said that in those words. I believe that DougR will back me up on that. I don't remember the thread- it was a few months ago- and I believe I remember I agreed with him at the time.

Doug?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:39 AM

Ebbie, this may well be true. I only checked those threads on which Guest Stackley had posted. I am often off the Forum for several weeks at a time, depending on how I am doing at the time and so I miss things. If you can remember the thread, please let me know. I'd like to check it out. I may actually owe Stackley an apology, depending upon the circumstances under which the statements were made.
Again, thanks for setting me straight on this issue.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 01:19 AM

Ebbie, Troll: Guest, Shackley is correct. Kendall and i were sparring a few months ago about what the Democrats and the Republicans had done for the country. Kendall, as usual, was claiming outrageous accomplishments for the Democrats and pointed out several things that the party could claim credit for. He challenged me to refute several (again) outrageous claims he made, including the ratification of the Women's right to vote. I did, in fact, go to the library and research the subject. The research that I did, and reported back to the Mudcat, did not support all of Kendall's claims, and Guest, Shackley, who at that time was operating under a different nom de plume, took offense to my report, suggesting that my research was certainly flawed (because, I assume, it did not coincide with his/her opinion). You didn't find the post, probably, because Guest Shackley was operating under a different name at the time.

After spending a couple of hours at the library, I did state that I did not plan to use more of my time on the subject. So, big deal.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 07:05 AM

I still say the bill for womens suffrage was signed by Wilson in 1919, ans passed under Harding in 1919. There is some question as to wether or not he was bright enough to know what suffrage meant. And social security is the child of the Democrats period.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 08:02 AM

Troll, if you'd clicked the link I posted, would have taken you right to it. It had nothing to do with anything I'd posted.
Ebbie, not a problem, its just Doug's uninformed opinion. You don't expect him not to be biased, do you?
Douger, you got any facts to back up your accusations, or are you just blowing it out your a** as usual?
Cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 08:44 AM

Come on, guys -- we can disagree without being so mean-spirited, can't we? This is a political thread, so disagreement is part of the game, and part of the fun. Doug is a gentleman, who isn't afraid to speak his mind, and is usually pretty articulate about it. Stackley, you don't agree with him, and much most of the time neither do I. So what? This would be a pretty uninteresting forum if we all agreed on everything. Lighten up, and play nice, okay?

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:17 AM

It always strikes me as strange how the big scandals that bring shame on politicians (in all countries) are the peccadilloes - a bit of burglary, or messing around with a groupie and so forth. Or telling a few lies - and they're politicians, it's what they do for a living, and we knew that when we elected them. It's like getting a cat and whinging when it starts spraying on the furniture.

Blowing up meducal factories, carpet bombing countries you aren't even at war with, colluding in assassinations, shooting unarmed demonstrators - noone ever got impeached or sacked for the serious stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:25 AM

Kendall, the 19th Amendment passed the House in 1918, The Senate in 1919 and was ratified by the states in 1920. It could not have been signed into law until it was ratified.
Stackley, I missed the link. Since then I have read the entire thread and, in my opinion, DougR fulfilled the assignment Kendall gave him. Nothing was said about giving a complete history of the various topics. That is beyond the scope of a forum at any event.
Regarding Labor Unions and their financial contributions to the Democratic Party, this is perfectly true and that money comes out of the dues paid by the Union members. They have no say in the matter; it is decided at the national level and usually rubber-stamped at the national convention.
Anyone who is a Union member who doesn't like a candidate being endorsed by the Union must live with the knowledge that HIS dues are going to support a candidate he does not support.
I speak from the vantage point of being a working member of a labor union for 30 years. During a portion of that time I was a shop steward.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:23 PM

I should have proof read before posting..I knew better.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:39 PM

S'okay Kendall.

Troll, you seem to lean a bit more to the right than anyone I know who is, or has been, active in the labor movement. You and Big Mick could provide us with a pretty interesting debate, I think, on the use of Union dues to support candidates. I'd certainly be interested in reading it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:47 PM

Where I live, unions have political funds from which any money given to poltical parties, or for campaigning, has to come, and it's up to a member whether he or she wants to pay into it. But for companies there's no such requirement - neither the shareholders nor the customers have any say on that.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:12 PM

I think Union members have no choice in the U. S. Mick or Whistle Stop could set us right on that. Shareholders have no say with corporate contributions, though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:31 PM

I'm not a union man myself, but I believe Doug is right.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:31 PM

About Government and Unions:

Back in the late 70's my band was contracted to play for a month in Ocala, Florida. We were a country-rock band, and had been booked by an agency in Nashville that handled straight country lounge acts into a club that they had done much business with previously. We stood to make a large amount of money and had a signed contract in hand before we left for FLA.

Little did we know that the club owner had decided to change format to "Rawk" Music (as the owner pronounced it). As soon as we arrived and started to set up our pedal steel guitar, he told us that we were gone at the end of the first week. We played the week under that cloud, but the crowds were good and we thought we'd be OK. On Saturday night he paid us in cash for the week and told us not to come back. We had spoken with a local union rep (the owner's bro-in-law, coincidently)who told us just to leave. Knowing that not showing up would put us in violation of our contract, I called the national office in New York, who said we'd have to show up on our next scheduled performance date ready to play unless the owner wrote a termination letter (which no sensible man would do). Still, I asked, figuring anything would be better than paying another four days of hotel bills.

Surprisingly, he wrote us the letter, and I quote "I hereby termination Cactus Jack because they don't play no rock music." We were covered.

To make a long and brutal story short, we scraped through a very poor February in Chicago while the case went to the Union. The owner was found to be in violation of a legal contract. Thank you, next case. The owner never paid us a cent; we would have had to sue him in a Florida court to get any money, which we couldn't do from Chicago. At best we would have broken even. At least we had the satisfaction of knowing the union shut him down, right? Not at all. And here is where the government part comes in.

You see, Florida is shat is known as a "right to work state". This means that the union couldn't stop other musicians from working in the club. Essentially, one very pretty sounding phrase "you have the right to work" had been twisted around by venal politicians to emasculate the unions in the state of Florida and, I have found out since, a nuber of other states.

In my mind this is a case where government has allied itself with business to undercut the rights of citizens. And it was all done under the cover of protecting a citizens right to work.

To me it takes an evil mind to create and support such pretense. It takes a lot of money and lawyers and a desire to subvert the system for personal gain. In my experience, it takes a Republican.

Thanks for letting me bore you with my little story. Hopefully it will stimulate some conversation. Jump in there and tear it apart.

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:44 PM

Unfortunately, Bart,in those states that are NOT "right to work" states, you HAVE to join the union in order to be able to work. This means that the union can effectively prevent a man from working simply by denying him union membership or by charging impossibly high initiation fees. I have been a union member for 30 years and have served as a shop steward. Since Florida is a right to work state, I worked alongside men and women who were non-union. I did not resent them and, if they had a grievance, I defended them to the best of my ability.
They made the choice to go non-union. I feel that they were foolish not to join and get ALL the benefits of union membership but they chose.
I always let people know that they could jion at any time and they would be welcomed. Some eventually did; some never did.
A union is good because there is strength in numbers, but if the leadership fails to represent the needs of the members all sorts of abuses of power occur.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 06:31 PM

The two unions I've been an active member of were the Musician's Union and the Postal Worker's Union. The two couldn't be more different. My dad, who was a Postal Supervisor couldn't get a mail carrier canned after documenting his incredible ineptitude and getting punched by the guy! The musician's union never did anything except collect my dues and keep me from appearing on Public Access TV (unless they paid scale).

I believe in unionism, but once again, we see in a lot of current unions a horrible distortion between what unions were meant to be and what they now are. We wouldn't have five day weeks and eight hour days without them. Period. But in too many cases you see leadership in management's pocket, or following an agenda that doesn't help the membership.

This may be a little off the point, but it seems to me that the effectiveness of unions or political parties for that matter comes down to one question: what is the role of the "opposition"? I think it was Troll who said that the role of the opposition party was to oppose. Maybe it would be better said that the role is to present an opposite point of view. For example, on health care the Republicans obstructed; rather than trying to change the Clinton plan into something workable, they simply did everything they could to discredit the plan and its developers. I think it would have been more responsible to work together to find a workable compromise. Same thing on the budget. We face another government shut down as Clinton and the Congress play chicken on funding.

What if unions and management could cooperate to resolve grievances, rather than representing diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive positions? Am I dreaming, or is there a way that reasonable men can come to a reasonable resolution of their differences?

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: thosp
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 07:37 PM

Blowing up meducal factories, carpet bombing countries you aren't even at war with, colluding in assassinations, shooting unarmed demonstrators - noone ever got impeached or sacked for the serious stuff.

i couldn't agree with you more McGrath of Harlow

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: BS: More Politics
From: Troll
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:44 AM

Bart, I agree with your definition of "oppose". That's what I meant to say, but I said it badly. Thanks for the rescue.
thosp...By "shooting unarmed demonstrators" I assume you mean Kent State. That was a National Guard unit which was ordered out by the Governor. It has never been determined who-if anyone- gave the order to shoot so there is no one to sack or impeach. Unless, of course, you're into scapegoats.

troll