BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man

Subject: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:49 AM

I'm going to try and write this without gloating, but I suspect my pugnaciousness will override the angels of my better nature. Bush and the Republicans did an amazing job of pulling off this election. Even the head of the Democrat National Party, Terry McAullife is quoted as saying that Bush was the "critical factor" in the Republican victories. Here in West Virginia we managed to fight to keep the first woman and Republican (Shelly Moore Capito) in the panhandle region, who was elected last time on the revulsion against Clinton, in a region that has always been Democrat. It was close, but we prevailed. And so it went across America.

Clinton and Gore and Teddy Kennedy went to Townsend's aid across the Potomac River in Maryland, and then Bush showed up and crushed them. Ehrlich winning the Governor's mansion is absolutely a stunning victory, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 5-1. Those who would call him "Shrub", etc. cannot see that, due to some combination of times and talent, he has moved the Country. He obviously does not let the polls guide his thinking or he would have stayed nestled in the White House, keeping his political capital to himself for the race two years from now. But he went to the people, campaigned vigorously, and won.

For months the Democrats will cavil and blame, seeking reasons that were "within their control", that they "failed to seize", and that they "overlooked", to "lose the election". The biggest mistake they will make is to fail to see that they were beaten by the better man.

And to those who still see the Florida standoff as some sort of theft of the election, they need only look at the situations in Minnesota and New Jersey, to see that sometimes the best intended outcomes are messy. But as a ticket-splitting nominal Republican, who believes in a woman's right to choose, and that Constitutional rights are insured with parallel responsibilities, I am quite pleased with yesterday's results.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Troll
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:45 AM

I predict that this will be a VERY short thread.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:56 AM

Gee, I dunno why it should. Claymore states his case honestly, and more important, without being anonymous. I disagree with (probably) most of his views but I welcome opposing points of view. Awww who cares anyway...I'm just one of those people Pat Buchanan refers to as denizens of Soviet Canuckistan!!!

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: JedMarum
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:03 AM

well said, Claymore. Now let's see if Bush and his party can put this victory to good use.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Amergin
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:03 AM

"Now let's see if Bush and his party can put this victory to good use.


that's the funniest thing i have heard all morning....rofl

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:08 AM

My 85 yr old dad, whose ancestors came, in part, from West VA, just said, "If this country could survive Hoover and Coolidge, it can survive this." I sincerely hope he is right.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:22 AM

This election is no mandate for Bush or the fundamentalist Republican ideologues. Nationally, the predicted voter turnout is 30%. Pundits all agree the "Republican mandate" is nothing more than a single senate heartbeat away from disappearing into the mists. McCain could go independent, and it's back to square one.

What is frightening though, is the fact that the fundamentalist Republicans are ruling this country with the support of only about 1/3 of eligible voters max. It seems they are able to hold onto control, no matter how low voter turnout goes, because of this incredibly dangerous "move to the center" by both Democrats and Republicans, which is what keeps people locked out of the process altogether. Republicans won Minnesota by co-opting the traditional Democratic agenda with the "compassionate conservative" facade that got Bush elected. The same way that the Clintonian Dems got elected by co-opting the Reagan agenda.

Standing in the middle stands for nothing but greed, graft, lust for power, and corruption of the system.

As I mentioned in another thread, Wall Street loves Washington gridlock, because it supports the corporate oligarchy agenda. That is what won it this time around. Those who are voting for the empire (and don't kid yourselves people, that is who is supporting the Republican fundamentalists--all those people we saw driving around after 9/11 with flags on their cars), on the national level at least, are voting for militarism. Voting for war. Voting for empire. Voting for nationalist machismo. Voting for "kicking ass" around the world.

Gloat all you want Claymore. Some of us aren't stupid enough to believe that Bush and the fundamentalist Republicans have overwhelming nationwide support, because we can actually do the math. Half of 30% of eligible voters is only 15%. Since WWII, it has been Republicans, not Democrats, running up huge deficits. They are the epitome of big government spending--if you don't believe that Claymore, just look and see what the bill will be to taxpayers for the military spending blowout that will come with the Homeland Security bill, the war against Iraq, the war on terrorism, and the oil it will take fuel it all.

Something that people who are voting Republican seem less able to do with every election, is see that their emperor has no clothes. Economically, they are now voting against their own self-interest, in order to vote for the right wing, racist, nationalist cause, currently masquerading itself as "patriotism". They still vote bread and butter issues in their local elections, but nationally, it is all about a nationalist militarist agenda. White men are the ones voting for these guys, not women, not people of color, and certainly not the poor and working classes, who are still the majority of people in this country.

This is the imperialist white man backlash, doing all it can to beat back the tides of progressive change. Nothing more, nothing less.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:43 AM

Well, danged, GUEST. What's left for me to say? Except, come out of the closet! This is my third request. You write so well that I hate to think of folks who dismiss your posts because of the GUEST thing.
I'll even give you a name if ya' like, but come on out! Pleeeze!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:44 AM

katlaughing, we lived through Reagan/Bush too. Nothing changed this morning--as John Stewart said last night on Comedy Central when he was interviewing McCain--so, the Congress looks pretty much exactly the same as it did yesterday. Things will, however, be much clearer to all of us once the smoke clears in few more weeks. The Democrats will either block the Bush agenda in the Senate with some serious filibustering, or they won't.

If anyone is in serious trouble with their credit card debt, I would definitely consider filing bankruptcy ASAP. One thing that is likely to get pushed through by the lame ducks is the bankruptcy bill. Wellstone was the only senator to be openly against it, and with him gone and the Ventura duck coming in, I'd say nobody was a bigger beneficiary of the Wellstone death than the banking industry pushing so hard to get this bankruptcy bill passed. Maybe we'll finally see a call for debtors prison from the Republican fundamentalists. With our civil liberties thrown out the window by the Patriot Act, maybe we'll see the fascists rounding up and enslaving the unemployed, the work to welfare mothers, and the homeless, and putting them all in the workhouse--just to get the economy roaring for business again, don't you know. It's for their own good, they'll say. They aren't good citizen consumers and worker drones.

The '00 decade is looking just like the last few decades that preceded it. Nothing has changed, except for the football teams in the Superbowl.

Anyone who thought this was such an important election simply bought into the media war drumming for ratings.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:49 AM

Well said, GUEST. I hope you are getting published somewhere else in addition to Mudcat.

We'll see how they all feel when their children come back in body bags.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: jimmyt
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:51 AM

I am intrigues buy the term fundimentalist republican! I also take exception that the vast majority of people "in the middle" stand for nothing I think if you were to poll a cross section of people you would find that the vast majority of people do fall in the middle! maybe it's my Methodist upbringing, but the axiom "all things in moderation" seems to fit the vast majority of the time. I happen to vote Republican on most issues, but I have some strong feelings against some of the right wing stances on abortion and gun control. I think some social programs that were developed by democrats are terrific, but again, I certainly don't believe in the social state that some left wings would have us believe is a panacea. I also worked my ass off over the years to get where I am today, and I think it is tragic that we now have an entire generation that has been raised in the welfare system who haven't had the work ethic driven in to them as I had. I certainly have every opportunity to pay my fair share of taxes year in and year out, and I resent when liberals say the rich aren't paying taxes. I work every year until the middle of June before I get any money of my own because the first half goes to the government. just a thought, but I am tired of reading how horrible all the conservatives are. Give me a moderate politician anytime over the extremes of either party.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Tim
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:57 AM

You're right jimmyt, but I'm afraid the moderates may dominate the 70% who don't vote. It's the true believers who go to the polls, so that's whose keister the pols must kiss, so a moderate pol is toast.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: bob schwarer
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:02 PM

Glad you brought up the "f" word, Guest. The people in this country are tired of obstructionists. If the dems do filibuster they are cutting their ownn collective throats.

Bob S.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:08 PM

(quote)
"I'm going to try and write this without gloating,..."

It's gonna be kinda hard to gloat when the deficits drive up interest rates again. Gloat over a replay of the 80's , but with a Hot War budget and *no* corporate cop-on-the-beat.
Hah!
They won't be able to make enough length of rope to what will be the a thoroughly fleeced-into-poverty electorate after buying into the bill-of-goods snakeoil the Bushites just sold them.

(quote)
" Bush and the Republicans did an amazing job of pulling off this election. "

Need i reminf you of that famous H.L.Menkin quote about "underestimating" the level of intellignece of the electorate?

(quote)
" Here in West Virginia... "

Hope ya still love your Bobby Bird and re-elected Johnny Rockafellar. Imagine how much more impoverished W.Virginny would be without the Federal pork they brought which is easily dwarfed by what now retiring Texas Repub Phil Gram pumped intoTexas ( home of Enron and trough for the most largesse from the S&L Fed Bailout from the Reagan/Bush 80's with just a Repub-controlled Senate ) by the 100's of billion$ during his tenure.

(quote)
" It was close, but we prevailed. And so it went across America."

Uhm , "across America"? This gloating has just gone to yer head, there, partner.

(quote)
"Those who would call him "Shrub", etc. cannot see that, due to some combination of times and talent, he has moved the Country. "

Oh Puh-lease. I suppose Republican "machine politics" and overwhelming cash warchest while distracting with war-talk voter attention away from the corporate crime wave amidst a sagging economy that the Bushites haven't demonstrated that they possess "Clue One" about dealing with as we watch the changing out of the hand-picked Bush economic team just started with Harvey the Pit.

( quote)
"He obviously does not let the polls guide his thinking or he would have stayed nestled in the White House, keeping his political capital to himself for the race two years from now. But he went to the people, campaigned vigorously, and won."

Excuse me , but this fantasy -fed Bush-worship is about as soft-headed as the Clinton-worship last time out. Bush *had* to vampaign in order to try an influence a majority in the Senate so his rulers can steamroll their agendas through. The poeple Bush answers to wouldn't allow him to just sit in the White House. They want an end to all these investigation , forget enforcement ,of integrity in "corporate governance" and accountability. They want a War nudget that spends like there's no credit limit while *not* paying for it but , instead ,passing it on to later generations like the Cold war debt they most profitted from which we will all still have to pay for on top of this new round of deficit spending. This is the *borrow & spend* Republicanism all over again and guess who gets the lionshare of that largesse and guess where you and I fit in that financial cosmology?
For you not to see this definitely means that gloating is hardly what this election means.

(quote)
"The biggest mistake they will make is to fail to see that they were beaten by the better man."

You mean the more effective money & muscle machine.
Gloating tends to obscure this kind of clarity.
Wait until the cheap thrill gloating stops and the bills start skyrocketing.
We'll talk then.

(quote)

" But as a ticket-splitting nominal Republican, who believes in a woman's right to choose, and that Constitutional rights are insured with parallel responsibilities, I am quite pleased with yesterday's results. "

Too bad you believe that those admirable principles ( the Constitutional ones of which I thorouhgly share ) are represented by this now one-party gov't ruled by human natures whom are not immune to the warning about "absolute power corrupting absolutely"
Gloat over that?

Think again, will you please.
I'm praying.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:12 PM

If 70% of the people aren't voting, whose fault is that? They're probably most of the ones complaining.

So here's my advice to that 70%: If you don't want 30% of the population making decisions on your behalf, then get your ass off the couch and go vote. If you are physically unable to get your ass off the couch, there are other ways for you to participate. Call your local election commission to find out.

Of course, you also have the right NOT to vote. Just keep your yap shut when things don't go the way you like.

So we've got a Republican congress now. Gee, I wonder what would happen if we just gave them a freakin chance?

Sick and tired of partisan politics.....

KFC

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:14 PM

Anyone who thinks a woman's right to choose is safe, now, is a complete fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:19 PM

"Constitutional rights are insured with parallel responsibilities"

What a fucking terrifying thought.

A constitutional right is a constitutional right. No one need do anything to insure their rights, except fight the people who would "exempt" women, people of color, and the poor from the constitutional protections all white men share.

Claiming the working poor, the unemployed, the welfare to work families, etc. aren't deserving of constitutional rights because fundamentalist Republicans fantasy that they aren't "personally responsible" or "accountable" is just too horrible a prospect for me to entertain. We might as well live under Pol Pot as the fundamentalist Republicans, for chrissakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: kendall
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:22 PM

Guest, you said it. With the right wing whackos in charge, who are they going to blame when the country wakes up to what has happened? How about two or three more Clarence Thomas' on the bench ,Roe v Wade out the window, and, God forbid, even Habeas Corpus.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: M.Ted
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:26 PM

Claymore and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but we may agree on something, and that is that the Democrats   underestimated Bush and his people, both in the presidential election and in this one--They unfortunately believed, and continue to believe that, as a politician he is stupid and inept, and, if history teaches us one thing, underestimating your enemy is fatal--

If the American people supported the people who best protected their interests, Conservative Republicans would never win anything, but they
have continued to be a dominant force in American politics because they talk to the people that vote, as opposed to the Democrats, who have a bad habit of only talking to each other--

As to Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, she sealed her own fate early on, when she failed to choose a a representative of the black community as her running mate--you can't alienate one of your primary constituencies and expect to win--

As to stupid mistakes, Rick Kahn,the fool who turned the Wellstone Memorial into a political rally, thereby embarassing and offending many Minnesota voters, turned the lead (and the election) back from Mondale to the Republican candidate--that stunt cost the democrats control of the Senate--

Claymore is overstepping when he says the Dems were beaten by a better man--they were beaten by a better politican, but those are two very different things--

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:28 PM

(quote)
"So we've got a Republican congress now. Gee, I wonder what would happen if we just gave them a freakin chance?"

Somehow ,in spite of your diatribe , I seem to recall that the Republicans already controlled BOTH house ever since 1994
until Jim Jefford's deciding to renounce the Republicans because "his party left him ".

Well to them that love to say how bad the country was during the Clinton's terms must take pause because most of it was during a "Republican Controlled Congress".
And just as a fr'instance , what Congressional investigations into corporate corruption did the Repub controlled Congress chose to focus theentire nation's attention upon? Whitewater.

Meanwhile there was Enron,Worldcom, Global Crossing, all on top of the Telecom Bubble economy ultimatelywiping out several trillion $ ( yes ,$trillion$) investment capital.

Where was this Republican controlled Congress given this chance to do its due-dilagence on atleast calling attention to this? Sorry , but a Repub controlled congress had its chance and the american investor is several $trillion$ the poorer for the Republican's efforts. Oh but we know more than we ever cared to about Whitewater.

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:59 PM

Whoa there MTed, you are WAY overstating the effects of Kahn's speech at the memorial. That was a Republican led outrage campaign that worked the same way the Monica Lewinski outrage campaign worked. It didn't drive anyone away from voting Democratic, it just insured the Republican base would turn out on election day. Which was all they needed to to do win, even against Wellstone.

Wellstone was barely ahead in the polls the day he died. He was polling a single point above the statistical error margin that had him and Coleman in a dead heat for months. There was still two weeks left to go, and the big guns campaigning on the Republican side had already been brought out to defeat Wellstone in the final two weeks of the campaign, including a shit load of advertising paid for by the Republican National Committee, and visits from the Republican celebrity glitterati in the weekend before the election. Since Mondale announced his candidacy last Thursday, we have seen Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, Presselect, and Rudy Giuliani all campaigning with Coleman in Minnesota.

No, Republican money won this election by a hair, pure and simple. That was all they ever needed to do, and they did it. They bought the Minnesota senate race. Mondale was penniless, and never really had a prayer of winning, which I said as soon as the name was mentioned. He was Old Guard, he was unknown to the younger generation, and he was anathema to the Wellstone ideals.

Coleman didn't win because of Rick Kahn's speech at all. People on the ground in Minnesota saw that moral outrage campaign for what it was, and were disgusted by it. Wellstone's supporters were devastated, and they stayed home, wrote in for Wellstone (over 6700 votes at last count), voted Green, or didn't vote for senate because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Mondale.

Wellstone was absolutely never the shoe-in to win this seat you are making him out to be. Because he was such a polarizing figure, and hated by many Democrats, his successor was never going to be able to defeat the Republican money on a sympathy vote for Wellstone.

Don't try and scapegoat a grieving, ruined man for this MTed. It is just too low.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:05 PM

The "better man"?

Better than whom?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:09 PM

Unfortunately, I think the winner of elections rarely has anything to do with being "the better man." It comes down to who has the most money and the loudest drum. I think Jerry Springer could win a seat in Congress if he ran because the vast majority just don't question platforms, don't think about the long term, don't even bother to think most of the time.

I believe every Republican that ran in NH won. Why? My guess is because NH is Republican and people always vote Republican because it's easier than learning about individual candidates. What was the Republican platform here? As far as I could tell, the main idea was that people shouldn't vote for the Democratic candidates. The secondary reason was the income tax which the Democrats were for. There's a lot of resistance to that idea, not because the amount of money people make isn't the best thing to base a tax on but because We've Never Done It That Way Before. I have NEVER heard any other explanation of the resistance to income tax and I doubt any of the folks who are so rabidly against it have any other explanation.

And the Republicans, as curmudgeon/Tom said in another thread, have loads of money. I received one mail ad from them and one phone call. The Repubs had enough dough to send me something like 30 slick mail ads and 10-15 phone calls. I got to yell at Bush on the phone although he didn't seem to notice. They have money. They couldn't care less that some of us are being killed by property tax. Mine is close to $3,000.00 (that's $4,674.49 Canadian), and I have a modest house on 2 acres out in the boonies.

It's a bit more than philosophical argument for me. I don't know how long I can afford to live here.

Claymore, it's always "the better man" when it's your candidate. Otherwise, you'd have to admit Clinton was the better man for two presidential elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:09 PM

I'm just sayin.... why don't we just give the elected people a chance, whoever they are, instead of griping about it all the time. It seems like a lot of people were hoping for a Democratic congress. We didn't get it.

I mean, here we are, talking about how important it is for people to vote, then we complain about who got elected. I don't like the way my state elections turned out, but I contributed my two cents. I lost. Let's move on.

No matter who's elected, they are never going to be able to please everybody. Why do we keep hoping they will?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: JedMarum
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:24 PM

I think the change in the Republican party's successes in recent years has been because they appeal to Libertarian oriented folks like me. They believe strongly in personal freedom and personal responsibility. They believe that the development of strong, principled and responsible individuals is the key to a successful and productive nation.

They will make their impact on American society, in the coming years; for better or for worse - and if they don't do a good job, they'll be out on their ears next election.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Naemanson
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:38 PM

All I can say is now we will find out if the Republican strategy is indeed good for the country. My prediction is that crime will be up, more people will be starving in the streets, funding for the arts will be out the window, National Public Broadcasting will be gone, racial profiling will be the rule, and the concentration camp system will expand beyond Guantanamo.

The political right no longer has anyone to blame if the whole mess goes flooey. It's all in their lap now.

And that's the only silver lining I can find in this cloud. It must be time to move overseas.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:49 PM

Jed "If they don't do a good job they'll be out on their ears next election" - God I hope you're right. The only good I can see coming from this is that they won't have anyone else to blame. Sink or swim they have to take the responsibility. They can't blame Clinton forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:55 PM

This was written in response to GUEST at 11:22 AM. Due to computer problems at work, it is only being submitted now.

Actually GUEST (and I do wish you would come up with a monicker as it gives us GUESTs some legitimacy, though your views will speak for themselves) I do believe that governing from the middle is exactly what this country needs. That does not mean that the legislative and executive branches need to be split amongst the parties, but that the middle of both the Republican and Democrat parties do form an essential center of beliefs and the actions that proceed from those beliefs. Fundamentalist Right-wingers do not control the Republican Party any more than Doctrinare Liberals control the Democrats. They may a role, and create a fuss on occasion, but if you consider that as each party grows in strength, it has to accomdate a greater reach of diverse views, just to stay in power. To do otherwise is called communisim.

As for the rest of your views, I could not disagree more. I detect a rigidity of lanquage that dates you, as it does some of the others. Your world died of it's own corruption, while you were still on bended knee, praying to it. Almost all the white men I know are welcoming progressive change with open arms. The predictions of massive deficits are the same ones we heard for the Gulf War, which lead to the massive prosperity in the years after the War. To claim that the majority of people who have voted or support an action you disagree with, are some form of dupes, leads me to ask; are you sure it was God who told you this?      

I do note that TIME magazine (www.time.com) has just put up a lead article that suprisingly backs virtually everything I wrote to start this thread, and that, plus the plurality of those persons who took the time and cared enough to vote, gives me the feeling that my views have some validity beyond the keyboard of my computer.

And do try and get some sleep, nothing will happen overnight or without proper warning. I promise we won't come to get you until after you've had your beauty rest...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:57 PM

There won't be any kind of right wing revolution in the next two years though Naemanson. Give the Republicans credit where it is due. They will further their agenda in much more insidiously subtle and secretive ways.

You are right Jed Marum--the Republicans have succeeded in co-opting the Libertarians, apparently without giving the Libertarians a bloody thing. BTW, I mean this sincerely. Would you mind explaining what you see as the ideological differences between yourself as a Libertarian and being a Bush Republican? I'm quite curious about that. So many people claim to be Libertarians with a big "L" and independent libertarians with a small "l" nowadays. I know they felt locked out of the Republican Party. There once was a Libertarian Party (associated with a nutcase, Lyndon La Rouche) that was about as strong as the Greens are now. But the party seemed to disappear once the two party government locked La Rouche up for doing what all the Democrats and Republicans were doing, and Ross Perot managed to buy his own third party. It was the later Reform Party republicans turned independents who elected Ventura. We now know that the voters who went for Ventura were largely Republicans who didn't like Coleman, and under 40 white males who claimed to have been disenfranchised by affirmative action and women's rights.

I'm really curious to hear how you think your political views differ from those of the Reagan/Bush/Gingrich/De Lay Republicans, because I really can't see any diference between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:01 PM

Claymore - You say that " Almost all the white men I know are welcoming progressive change with open arms". Could you expound on that ? I must be missing something.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: M.Ted
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:12 PM

Guest,

Far be it from me to scapegoat anyone, let alone a grieving and ruined man--I only report the facts, which are that
Before the Memorial/Rally, Mondale was leading in the polls, 47% to 39%--there was an immediate, angry reaction to the partisanship of the Memorial/Rally, and Mondale(one of a very small number of politicians that I have any respect for) dropped immediately, and went on to defeat--

For proof that I have not overstated the effects of the speech, read the following:

Republicans Decry Service As Partisan



href="http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/4399539.htm">Wellstone
Remembrance



href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021030_extra.asp">Wellstone
Memorial Service Turned into Liberal....

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:17 PM

Dead on there Wesley S! The Republican National Committee targeted the discontented white male voting bloc in this election. They aren't a very large voting bloc, mind you, but they were large enough to put the Republicans barely over the top.

Neither party needs to win by a landslide to be in control of the US economy--which, we should not forget, is the richest in the world. That does leave the system vulnerable to demagoguery at it's worst. And it's most effective. They certainly honed the message for the discontented white male with that "compassionate conservative" thing, didn't they?

And Claymore, telling us that Time magazine agrees with you isn't going to win any arguments. See "Wall Street loves Washington gridlock" stories. That is what moderate centrism brings in a two party system: gridlock.

Time magazine is the Republican working man's mouthpiece for Wall Street. The Republican "everyman" man nowadays is a white collar, middle class, 30 to 60 something, "I got mine and I want more" sort of working man. A very few of them are even men of color, like Colin Powell. They aren't the same Republican everyman as the Limbaugh/Springer Republican everyman. No, those educated, middle class Republican everymen view "those redneck Republicans" with the same contempt they do their educated, middle class moderate Democrat counterparts.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: M.Ted
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:23 PM

Sorry--here are the links again--I used the link maker--

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1752/3398117.html
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021030_extra.asp
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/4399539.htm

---

Links fixed. Looks like the blickifier doesn't work very well with automatic line breaks. --JoeClone

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: M.Ted
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:27 PM

Aggh--sorry, I am a goon! I am afraid you'll have to make the best you can out of them--

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: jimmyt
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:37 PM

MTed, You refer to Underestimating out enemies? I was raised to believe in respect for our president, regardless of who he is. No matter who I believe in or vote for, very few people in American politics is my enemy. Seems like pretty strong language. I think of enemies as people like Osama Ben Ladin, Hitler, etc who want or wanted to see us dead. I think there is a difference between respectfully disagreeing with a policy, party, or opinion and calling these people who do not share our particular philosophy the enemy. This type of thinking seems to be as prejudiced as the standard hete group mentality.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: kendall
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:40 PM

This is the second person I have met who thinks Clinton's blow job was more serious than the Actor's bald faced lying. He got on tv, lied through his teeth about Iran-Contre, lied about Arms for hostages, then, when caught, he came on tv and admitted his lies. He gets an airport named after him, Clinton gets tarred and feathered. How screwed up can one's priorities be? PEG FOR PRESIDENT!

Better man? horse shite! lucky is all. The democrats handed them the victory. Spineless wimps me tooing the moron who is having a wargasm.
A pox on them all.
I mean, look at his history! he has failed at everything he ever got into, and, God help us, look what he is doing now.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:46 PM

Well, Jimmy, I was raised to respect the office, but that doesn't mean the individual. A snake is a snake, whether they get elected or not. I'm not going to kiss a snakes butt and mindlessly repect them just because they managed to buy themselves a job.

But I respect the office, and that means I'm not likely to lead an armed revolt to oust a legitimately elected official anytime soon.

I agree that words like "enemies" when referring to your political opponents are inappropriate. So is "winning."

GUEST -- I wonder how many of those folks actually read the book "Compassionate Conservativism." (That Dubya says he agrees 100% with.) It's proposes that poor people are poor because they don't pray enough, sick people are sick because God is punishing them, and that the solution to society's ills is to go to church more. If a man is hungry, you don't give him food OR teach him to fish -- you teach him to pray.

The last time western society have that attitude, they were still drowning women for the sin of murdering their babies when they miscarried.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,C
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:49 PM

It's hard to catch up at work but I'll try

Jeri, reference your comment about Republicans in NH. The same thing could be said about Democrats in Washington DC. Maybe it's in the water...

Guest at 1:57, You are incorrect about the Libertarians and Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon first tried to co-op the Communist Party under Gus Hall, but was beaten back in a series of red-diaper spats that lasted until the middle 70's. Then he co-opted the Socialist Workers Party, through the Socialist Labor Party, and then the Labor Party, all of New York City. He then moved to Leesburg, Virginia in 1984, under the guise of the Democratic National Policy Commitee, with a back door liaision to the White Socialist Workers Party, in the guise of Roy Frankhouser, ex-grand Dragon of the Penn KKK. On Oct 6, 1986, 475 officers from all the Federal branches, and the Virginia State Police, hit seven locations in Leesburg, and secured evidence of massive loan fraud, voter fraud, and IRS violations (Lyn NEVER paid his taxes). How do I know? Those were my warrants on 10/6/86. Lyn did five years at Rochester, Minn. FCI, and as a token of his legacy, one of his minions, Nancy Spannaus (whose husband also did five years) ran against John Warner of VA this year, and secured something like 10% of the vote. (Look it up.)

Wesley, You don't need me to validate my point... Are you hanging around a bunch of insecure angry white males, who fear the future at every turn, and feel as though their leagacy is being sold down river to every minority group with it's hands out... neither do I ...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:49 PM

MTed, by agreement of all parties (ie the Coleman camp, the Wellstone camp, and the Mondale camp), that Minneapolis Star Tribune poll you are citing was a joke, and should never have been published as a legitimate poll. It was done on the fly, with dubious polling methods, by the major Minnesota daily who endorsed Mondale. By the time the two legitimate polls were published on Friday, showing Coleman and Mondale in a statistical dead heat with the edge going to Coleman, all the Minnesota pundits and pols agreed the Strib poll was just plain a bad poll.

BTW--the polls published on Friday were completed by Wednesday, and so didn't reflect much if any signifcant Republican outrage data, except the Republican outrage which would have existed whether Kahn had spoken or not. Sorry that information never made it into the national press. It might have made a difference for Mondale if it had actually. It might have galvanized those Democrats and independents who were totally disgusted with both Ventura and Republicans, and wanted to vote for Wellstone to begin with, like my 18 year old first time voter kid. And there were a lot of them, MTed. They were the Wellstone army, the young and idealistic, who were locked out of the mainstream DFL party in Minnesota by the Mondale/Humphrey Democrats. If you are looking to scapegoat somebody in Minnesota for the loss of the US senate, blame the Wellstone army of loyalists.

The DFL party in Minnesota didn't do badly at all in many local races. Democrats didn't vote against Mondale in this election, and neither did independents. What won the race for Coleman was Republican money, an exteremely effective negative/attack ad campaign against Wellstone prior to his death, and the too short to be effective (and virtually nonexistent) Mondale campaign.

The most recent results I've seen of the race (this morning's paper) had Coleman at 50%, Mondale at 46%, and the Independence Party candidate (Ventura's party) at 2%. That is right where the Wellstone/Coleman numbers had been for the last six months. I do believe that Wellstone's army not coming out in the hoped for by the Mondale camp numbers did make a difference. But that was because those were the core Wellstone loyalists, who didn't want to support Mondale period, not because of what Kahn said at the memorial. The Wellstone loyalists have continued to support Kahn. Over 6700 of them wrote in Wellstone, which is what my first time voting kid did. Many of them, like me, likely didn't vote in the US senate race.

But Kahn being the cause of the Democrats losing control of the US senate? Well, that's a red herring if ever there was one.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Roy H
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 03:04 PM

Liberal Democrats are the past master of the demagogue.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 03:19 PM

Confession: GUEST,C in the above post, is me, Claymore. Computer is acting the fool today...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 03:28 PM

Sorry, but I am with Kendall. The notion that the best back stabber, the best pocket-liner, the best double-tongued sidewinder, the best political manipulator, the best nepotist or even the best PR scum artist, is in any way the best man reflects awfully poorly on the moral fiber of the owner, 's all I can say.

Bush does appear to be a biped, Nicole, but I grant you he seems kinda twisty, venemous, cold blooded and reptilian!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 03:45 PM

Claymore, I did say that La Rouce was a nutcase, didn't I? Yes, I did. What I am curious about, is why so many former Libertarian Party members are now voting Republican rather than Libertarian (and working for Republican campaigns instead of Libertarian ones). I am also curious about those people who are self-identifying as Republican leaning, independent libertarians (ie people whom, I'm guessing, believe in what they think is a libertarian political philosophy, but aren't self-identifying as members of the Libertarian or Republican parties).

I really don't see any ideological differences between the Libertarian Party's platforms of the last 40 or so years, and today's Republican Party platforms. Both parties can claim membership of people from a broad political spectrum, from Posse Comitatus to John McCain to Olympia Snowe. OK, so the Libertarians probably can't claim too many Olympia Snowes. But you do catch my drift, I hope.

Ideologically, I don't see a difference, so I'm curious to see how Libertarian Party members and independent libertarians believe they differ from one another.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 03:59 PM

Well, if my feeble Wes Ginny thinkerator ain't actin' up on me, seems that back during the South Carolina primary, Bush blew his entire war chest beating that upstart John McCain. Yeap, I remember all this wringing if hands that Junior wasn't going to have any money for the rest of the campaigne. Then, like overnight, the coffers just filled right back up. Hmmmmmmmmmm, Part 1......

Liberal democrats, Claymore? Hmmmmmmmmmm, Part 2.....

And lastly, I gotta agree with GUEST in that the Repubs did target angry white males. I was thinking this every time I heard Bush stumping for Candidate X or Candiadte Y. He reminded me of a jock arguing with another jock over a football game. There was nothing particularly civilized in what he said or how he choze to say it. It was huff-n-puff and more huff-n-puff. Same stuff he's leading with with his foriegn policy. No wonder he's got half the world scared to death of America. He's a redneck with a big bad stick and he's made it perfectly clear that he will hit you with it. Doesn't even matter if you just happen to be a good ol' American citizen either.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: toadfrog
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:00 PM

Claymore, for a man who "tries not to gloat," this sounds a whole lot like gloating. And for a man who believes in "governing from the middle," you have posted a lot of very extreme stuff in this Forum. But I will give you one thing. When you call Bush the "better man," you are true to yourself, and to the tradition that says, "the best man is the one with the most money."

Are you by chance, a disciple of Ayn Rand?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Naemanson
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:24 PM

Kendall, almost all the conservatives I have met believe it is more serious to screw around in the Oval Office than it is to lie to the American public.

One of the things that really tic me off is that there is no outrage in this country about what the Shrub has done and is doing to this country. The Republicans in Washington thought nothing about spending millions chasing all the dead ends of Whitewater and the blow job and yet the Democrats do not seem to think it worth while to pursue the Shrub's connections to Enron and the other corporate criminals.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: harpgirl
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:34 PM

like I said...I will kiss DougR's ass as well as Claymore's if the Republicans do something about my health insurance premiums.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:44 PM

Oh yeah, health care reform. The main platform of the Clinton administration. Right.

Well, I don't have any health insurance harpgirl, so you are still doing a damn sight better than some of us. Health care reform is only meaningful to people who have it, and don't like the fact that it costs them more every year.

The number of uninsured Americans, which had fallen in 1999 and 2000, rose by about 1.4 million in 2001. New data and studies indicate the increase was due in large measure to the faltering economy, mounting health care costs, and the erosion of private health insurance coverage. The total number of uninsured Americans rose from 39.8 million in 2000 to 41.2 million in 2001, according to new findings from the Census Bureau.

I'll kiss DougR's Republican ass and Claymore's extremist right win ass just as soon as their leaders get insurance for us 41.2 million Americans with no insurance whatsoever.

I have a feeling you'll be kissing ass long before me.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:46 PM

Now, Amos, who said I was talking about Bush :) Well, I *do* think he's a snake, except that I like snakes better. They don't lie about their nature.

We've had repulsive, unethical presidents who you wouldn't want to be left in a room with... and depending on your idealogy, the list may be very different. Getting elected doesn't mean you are worthy of respect.

But I don't remember any Republican rhetoric about how we need to respect the office when Clinton was in there. Those that thought HE was a snake said so and loudly, and did a lot of hunting trying to come up with something he did wrong. This is way beyond what Jimmy was talking about, but we always hear Republicans whining about supporting the President... when the Pres is a Republican. Otherwise, fair game.

'Tis America. We don't have bloody coups but we do verbally disembowel our elected officials :)

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: harpgirl
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:55 PM

...you are probably correct, Guest. I do think the pivotal issue in the next ten years will be health care and health care costs if we don't blow up the world by February, not the price of oil.

I am in a much better position than you I agree, in that I can afford to buy some health insurance, assuming you can't afford to buy it or you are not eligible for medicare or medicaid: At least for the next year, although it will be inferior to the coverage I have now. And I am a female entrpreneur of sorts, a postergirl for the Republican party. Even though I owe my strength to the feminist movement and my own genetics.

I also think that even though the health care costs of AIDS has not hit us full force yet, we will follow Russia, China, Indonesia, and India. We're doomed, inotherwords, as a species. Anyone who thinks the Republicans can stop this is welcome to think it! I'll say goodby now eveyone, it's been a wonderful trip...but I am going to keep doing mental health care until I have to do something else....and music of course....hg