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

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: harpgirl
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:57 PM

I didn't mention Africans because the continent and it's citizens are beyond doomed at this point, as any intelligent person can see...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:10 PM

harpgirl, how can say we're doomed, when the presselect is poised to push his prescription drug bill (now take your medicine, America and pay up front...) and the patient bill of rights? ;-)

Actually, I wasn't trying to point a personal finger at you, just point out that 1.2 million more Americans have fallen into the ranks of uninsured since Bush was elected. That isn't all Bush's fault, because our Democratic "health care reform" president didn't do jack shit to change the reality of health care in this country. He caved to the many lobbies from the medical industry, and the Republican controlled Congress.

What I'm saying is if we don't get a national health care policy developed, we will be going the way of Africa. Is that what Republicans want? Is that what the wealthy want? We are surrounded by water--just where do they think the sick and disabled are going to go exactly, so they need not see or touch them? And just who do they think will be around to care for them and their baby boomer loved ones, if they do nothing to deal with the crisis in health care management, like understaffing?

But I couldn't disagree more about oil not being an issue. The price of home heating oil and natural gas may not be much of an issue where you live, but I assure you, you are going to hear plenty about it while the Congress is in recess.

And once Bush gets the war launched in January (the weather dictates Bush's timeline in Iraq, not the US Congress or the UN), you can come back and tell me the cost of gasoline isn't an issue too.

But hey, considering that the economy looks to still be going to the dogs, I'm sure working in the mental health care biz will be more lucrative, just like lawyering will be.

Sad, but true.

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

Hey, Claymore, last time I checked, having a 51-49 majority in the US Senate and holding power in the House by a handful of seats, not to mention having won several races by very slim margins, does not constitute a mandate for the winning party.

(Nobody's had a mandate since Reagan, and that was due as much to his personal communication skills and charm as to his policies, I think. But even Reagan won some states by a nose.)

I'll agree that the losses the Democrats took in several key races were probably due largely to Bush's "coat tails."
Lots of folks on both sides of the political spectrum generally approve of the way he (with the help of Colin Powell et al.) has handled the "War On Terrorism" -- especially the war in Afghanistan. (I don't know that other Presidents in his position would have done much different in that respect.)
Republicans love Bush a lot more than the bulk of his opponents hate him or his policies. Their base was more energized in yesterday's elections.

But who are you comparing him with ("...a better man..."). The Democrats don't have one clear leader that they rally behind.

The thing that alternately annoys and amuses me is the spin that a lot of Republicans are putting on the election results.
First, they overstate the magnitude (i.e., depth) of the Republicans' victory. Then, after saying the Rebublican wins represent a "mandate" for Bush or a referendum on his popularity (and that of his policies), many of them go on to attribute the outcome to:
-- the meanspiritedness of Democrats
-- the strategic bungling of the Democrats (in getting out the vote)
-- the so-called exploitation of Wellstone's memorial service for political gain
-- the failure of the Democrats to present a clear picture of their vision
and a host of other shortcomings of the Democrats.

I want to say to these Monday morning quarterbacks: Make up your mind. If you want to attribute the (mostly narrow) wins to Bush's popularity, you detract from that conclusion when you throw too many alleged Democratic faux pas and character flaws into the mix.

Genie

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

Yeah, GUEST, and when one considers that those who *have* health insurance don't have a Patients Bill of Rights, other than government employees, no one really has health insurance. My provider can drop my sorry but if I get really sick and without a Patients Bill of Rights, I gotta take my sick butt to an attorney who is gonna want a check for $5000 or more as a retainer to fight with a company that I pay $9,456 a year for health insurance... ahhh, to fight for droppin' my sick behind.... And that is a fact....

Purdy f**ked up deal but when you're dealin' with the ruling class, that's about all you're gonna get.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 01:40 AM

Guest Claymore's opener on this thread is the first I've seen which truly merits the "B.S. " in the title-----hope he hasn't really got one o' those Hielan' swords his name suggests---!!

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Naemanson
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 08:15 AM

Let's see, the Republicans think the Democrats are weak because the Democrats don't stand in line and slavishly follow orders. I always thought the ability to think for oneself to be an admirable trait.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:31 AM

First of all, I opened the thread long before the TV and newspaper commentors began to say virtually the same thing, from Carvell to Brokaw, so my views are considerably mainstream, if not a tad prescient. It was Bush who came out of the White House against all polling advice, took his case to the people in a whirlwind campaign, and was the deciding factor in the Republican win. I never said it was a mandate, but it is clear that it is against the historic nature of off-year elections, and thus earns greater interest than the normal election.

And to the earlier comment about Clinton, Clinton lost steadily during both of his off-year elections (remember Newt as TIME's Man of the Year?).

I do not see this as finished however. With the run-off in Louisiana, both sides will pile it on (shades of Florida). And if Landrieau wins, I look for heavy pressure to be put on Chaffe from Rhode Island to pull a Jeffers, and switch parties.

And, as to the Dems faux pas(s) vs Bush, the election was full of quirks on both sides, witness NJ and Minn, but considering where the polls were (and the general acceptance of their accuracy at the time) it was a good leadership choice by Bush to jump into the fray and try and make a difference for his party. For those of you who wish to recall, Clinton let his side sink or swim in 1994...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Troll
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:59 AM

William Jefferson Clinton went on national TV and said;"I did not have sex with that woman..." a blatant lie. Never mind what it was about, he lied to the American Public. He's not one damned bit better than any of the other liars that we have inflicted ourselves with.
The Health Plan that Hillary tried to sell was so flawed that she and Bill couldn't even get the Dems to back it. It was not scuttled by the Republicans. It was a bi-partisan effort.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:59 AM

Claymore, here is the thing. Some of us commenting here aren't fans of Clinton or Bush. Why is that so hard for partisans to accept? And I am not using the word 'partisan' as a Republican expletive.

The point we are making is that neither party and neither president is meeting our needs as a citizenry. Just ask the 70% of eligible voters who gave your fearless leader quite a mandate when they didn't vote.

And Claymore, I don't know why you think that coming in here and regurgitating what you hear on the talk news 24/7 channels and read in Time magazine is going to influence anyone. Many of us have access to that shite, and are quite dismissive of it for what it is--a ratings game for television advertisers. These guys aren't exactly the august leaders coming out of the Columbia School of Journalism. Even those who are of that ilk, aren't believable. And everyone knows that their local media is even worse!

Frankly, I'm impressed with the level of discussion here. But I am dismissive of anyone coming in and gloating like you did.

Bad form, and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: JedMarum
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:27 AM

faceless arrogance passed off as wisdom

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: harpgirl
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:34 AM

Personally I've enjoyed the debate engendered by a kinder, gentler "trickster." Max doesn't want to change the mudcat structure to solve this fight over anonymity, so I say again, either call"Guest" by his time/date or think of him/her as all the same. That energy is better spent at your considerably artistry, dear Jed...hg

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 11:12 AM

For those of us who hang around the BS threads, current GUEST is definately *recognizable* and, in my opinion, a cut above the usual GUEST's who rarely have anything of sustance to contribute. And for that reason I will make by 6th plea to this GUEST:

Come on out, my friend!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 11:34 AM

Guest 959, I don't need to point out what TIME or the others are saying to validate my views only to point out that a significant number of others hold them. To the extent you profess your views, they are valid. To the extent that only you and the other person in your bathroom at night, hold those views, goes to the significance.

And after complaining that I have given TIME and the others media sources as some form of validation and then to state that "Everybody knows the local media is worse", may I suggest a bathroom conference with whoever it was that OK'd the use of "Everybody knows"? Or would that suggestion be too dismissive?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Naemanson
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:25 PM

I remember Newt as the other guy who was banging an intern in his office.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:33 PM

And who divorced his wife on her sickbed. Have you noticed how the righties are trying to resurrect and clean up his image. Remains to be seen if the same people who vilified Clinton's morals will now say that Newt was unjustly pilloried. My bet is that they will.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:37 PM

Oh, heck! There were a bunch of 'em that came out of the woodwork when Larry Flynn offered reward money to the women who had the goods on other elected officials. Hey, this stuff has been going on forever. Who cares? Oh, you do? And you? And even you? Well, there's more to life than other folks sex lives unless, of course, you ain't got one of your own to hold your attention. Go get yourself laid and lay off others for doing the same. Geeeze...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: kendall
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:59 PM

Troll, I ask you the same question I asked Doug. Clinton lied. Reagan lied. what is the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:32 PM

And I answered you, Kendall, in the same thread that you posed the question.

Claymore: Good thread, glad you started it. I don't know about you, but I've never had so many offers to get my ass kissed. You? I'm kind of flattered. Sure glad it was Harp Girl instead of Bobert though.

KimC: Don't let the detractors get you down. Your posts make a lot of sense.

Jimmy: Do me a favor, will you? Define a moderate for me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:38 PM

Makes two of us, Dougie...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:39 PM

Someone mentioned the possibility of Chaffee becoming an Independent. That could happen of course, but he may be giving some thought to the rewards that are going to accrue to Jim Jeffords with the Republicans back in power. That will probably give him pause to think about it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:39 PM

You may be right DougR. My guess is that they will declare Vermont a Nuclear Waste Material Repository, and try and get Nevada back in the fold. And Jeffords becomes Chairman of the Dumpster Policy Board...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: kendall
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:52 PM

No Doug you didn't answer. You split hairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:00 PM

kendall and dougr, I think both of you are making valid points. What is frustrating is that neither of you seems willing to accept at face value what the other believes most important.

That said, there has been quite a bit of distortion regarding the historic record regarding presidents lying in general, presidents lying to and defying Congress, and presidents lying under oath.

To review all that, you have to look back to the issuance of subpoenas upon sitting presidents. The issuance of the Clinton subpoena was an unprecedented expansion of the powers of the independent counsel. Neither in Watergate nor in Iran-Contra did the special prosecutors--who were investigating real crimes, not the private sexual conduct of the president--compel sworn testimony from the occupant of the White House.

Nixon was not forced to testify in Watergate despite being at the center of a campaign to subvert the 1972 elections, carry out illegal spying on political opponents and suppress opposition to the Vietnam War. Independent Counsel Archibald Cox, and his successor Leon Jaworski, subpoenaed only the tape recordings of conversations in the Oval Office.

In the investigation of the Iran-Contra affair, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh did not subpoena Ronald Reagan although Reagan had admitted to Walsh personally authorizing the secret arms transfers to Iran, and the establishment of a paramilitary supply operation for the Nicaraguan contras, in defiance of a congressional ban. Walsh took Reagan's testimony by submitting written questions to the White House, which were answered by Reagan's lawyers. Vice President Bush gave deposition testimony, but was not subpoenaed and did not appear before the grand jury.

Even in the face of extraconstitutional actions and threats to democratic rights, the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigators adhered to the traditional doctrine of separation of powers--between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches--which was interpreted to mean that no court could compel a president to testify personally.

Considering the substantive differences in the above three cases, it is perfectly obvious that Starr acted out of a scurrilous political motivation to humiliate and embarrass Clinton. Clinton should have refused to testify for the good of the office. He never could have been impeached, had he refused.

And DougR, it is patently offensive to attempt to conflate sexual impropriety with funding and arming private paramilitaries in foreign countries for the express purpose of overthrowing a legitimately elected government in defiance of a congressional order, and trade weapons for hostages.

To suggest that the former is worse than the latter defies all common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:12 PM

That said, and I agree, Doug has every right to be a Puritan!

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:17 PM

Thank you guest, I think so too!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:30 PM

harpgirl - Most countries in the so-called "free world" (in the developed nations, I mean) have a pretty extensive government-funded health care system. Canada's pays for all your normal medical treatment by MD's, and pays part of chiropractic care, etc...but no dental. Drugs are fairly expensive, but less so than in the USA.

The free world, by the way, is the one inside your head and mine...and anyone else's who cares to use their own inclination to think freely.

A country which cannot provide free medical care to its people is either an archaic dictatorship or a place that has sold its soul to certain big-money interests...that is, the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies. The USA is in the latter condition. Most unfortunate for its befuddled citizenry who have little idea that things could actually be better somewhere else.

Now back to that thread title... The "better man"? Hmmm. Is that anything like "the better mousetrap"? I'm skeptical about the whole basic concept. :-) LOL!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Biskit
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:57 PM

Chicken Little was a Liberal,..AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAieeeeeeee! the sky is falling! The sky is fallllllinnnng!!!! If you don't like the way it turned out, we can try again in two more years. Geeeeezus! Maybe George W. Bush has a better idea than continuously raising taxes which is the Dems answer for everything! It is not our Govts. responsibility to collect money and redistribute it to folks too damned lazy to work! ~Biskit~

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 08:54 PM

Aw, come on, Biskit....what about us radicals? I mean, really, expecting either the Dems or the Reps to solve society's problems is like expecting Jerry Springer to end bad taste on TV. Hopeless.

Expecting either one of them to destroy the world as we know it is just a tad more realistic...but what the hell...I am not going to lose any sleep over it. What's the point?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: curmudgeon
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:01 PM

Biskit -- You have achieved a level of offensiveness I have not hitherto experienced on Mudcat and you have really PISSED ME OFF!

It is people like you who give Republicans a bad name and worse.
Before you start carping about redistrubution of monies to those you deem "... too damned lazy to work!," get out of your ivory tower and take a look at this world you are so pleased with.

I left a teaching job to open my own business. When the local base closed, many of my customers lost their jobs. There wasn't enough busines to continue.

As my mother was in poor health, I did some substitute teaching so as to devote some time to her while looking for a full time teaching gig..
Surprise! Schools could hire two fresh college grads for what they would have to pay me. Of course they really cared about getting qualified, experienced teachers, but the elderly can't pay any more property taxes and the peoplae like you won't pay any more taxes.

That was ten years ago. In that time I have found only one company that will provide meaningful work at modest pay for people over fifty, but it's only for part of the year. And now they are sending some of the work out of state to get it done by less competent people for less money.

I know I am not alone. In trying to contact one agency for help in getting some firewood, it took two and a half days to get past the incessant busy signals.
My unemployment "benefits" are not quite twice what I am expected to pay in property taxes on a weekly basis.

I don't know who you are, where you're from, or what you do, but I earnestly hope that for a short time, you get to walk in someone else's shoes and see how difficult life can be.

Disgusted -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:06 PM

Yep, that's the real world, Tom. But I doubt that Biskit is interested in your line of thinking.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:30 PM

Danged, Curmudgeaon! Man, you speak a million truths. There are so many folks who have given and given and given and then there are folks like Biskit's friends who continue to take, take and take. Bless you, my friend, and thank you for sharing. You will be in my prayers tonight. Fir sure.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:56 PM

I don't jump on many threads anymore, as I have pretty well said what I need to say in most. So in this one I must add an Amen to my friend Tom, and to ask DougR and Biskit a question.

Why, DougR, when we are dealing with perceptions, do you alway jump in, yet when faced with well researched and documented information, such as GUEST gave you, do you refuse to answer except with trite little lines? GUEST gave you concise information to respond to. I would suggest it is because you are like most conservatives who would rather dwell on "the good ole days" and "traditional values" as a perception. Yet when someone makes the distinctions made in the above posts that conclusively show the hypocrisy in such statements, you have no response.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 02:16 PM

Mick,

In case you haven't noticed, a bumper sticker is about all you need to explain the conservatives response to any complex issue. They do tend to get bogged down when dealing with, ahhh, details. But look who's their *Main Man*. I rest my case.

(But I still like ya, Doug...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 03:28 PM

Big Mick, I'm sure that DougR can speak for himself, but when I read Guests contribution, I regarded it as a complete thread creep and totally bogus on the facts.

1. Just to name a few, it was a complete lie to state that the previous Special Prosecutors were investigating crimes and Starr was not; lying to a Federal Grand Jury is a crime. Thus the lie.

2. The statement that Reagan admitted to Walsh he had authorized the Iran-Contra exchanges is a lie. He never did, and numerous others testified to that issue.

3. His extensive use of the words "extra legal proceedings" is a lie. Virtually everything Starr did was approved by the Supreme Court, after extensive litigation by the Clintonites on every issue. That's called legal.

4. His discussion of the Boland Act is a complete lie; the Sandanistas were never duely elected, and once the elections were held, they lost. You might want to rethink the words "patently offensive" in light of this...

5. The most patently offensive thing done during the Iran Contra affair was the requirement that a person under indictment by the Federal Government, should be compelled to by a Democrat Congress to testify in front of the Nation, against his own Constitutional rights. I personally cannot think of a more egregious abuse of power than that, and as we both know, the Supreme Court said as much.

Again, we are not talking about a view or opinion here; you yourself call them facts. I see no reason why any one would want to spend the time attempting to answer patent lies, and it is that this point, I go to spend my holiday...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 05:07 PM

Claymore, you are really so full of it sometimes.......... I purposely asked DougR these questions to see if he would come up with the answers that I was looking for. But I see that you could not contain yourself. I will answer your assertions as soon as I have had some time to examine them. Several contain "truths" that I don't quite remember that way, but I will check the record.

Next time, let the man answer for himself. The point wasn't about the facts of the case as much as it was to demonstrate a typical attribute of average "conservatives" as well as average "liberals" who don't bother to engage in a debate to the extent of checking others facts.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 05:24 PM

Mick: I assume when you chastise me about not replying to a Guest thread you were referring to the one a Guest posted at 7:00 P.M.

What would you have me do? I read the thread but as I recall, the subject under discussion was Clinton's lying and Reagan's lying. I don't recall any mention of Nixon, Ford, Carter, a special counsel or anything else. We were talking about whether or not it is acceptable to lie.

Since you indicated that you do not "jump in any threads anymore" you may not be aware that this subject came up in other existing threads. In one of those, or perhaps somewhere in this one I stated that it was wrong of Reagan to lie. It was wrong of Clinton to lie too!

This isn't a matter of being conservative or liberal, at least not in my opinion. It speaks to character. I don't think Clinton has much and you disagree. That's your right. However when I feel the need to be lectured to, by you or anyone else in the forum, I'll post a thread.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 05:34 PM

Doug, you posted a remark that never responded to the post and I responded to by questioning you as to why. I don't care what you like about that as this a public forum. All it required was an answer. When one engages in the dialogue, they must be prepared to take the response to their opinion. You chose to get in the debate and takes stands.

As to what I thought of Clinton's character, once again you don't really know what I think but you choose to comment on it. All you know is that I am a Democrat and an independent thinker (as evidenced by my stances on the gun debate and the abortion issue). If you would be so kind as to give me a source of where I said that I approved of Bill Clinton lieing, I would be grateful and be happy to stand corrected.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 06:10 PM

Reagan & Iran Contra, from "The American President" website, I quote:

"The investigation by a special Senate committee—presented on national television —revealed that North and John Poindexter (Reagan's national security adviser) had routinely lied to Congress, destroyed official documents, misled cabinet officials, and practiced a foreign policy agenda characterized by deception and a flagrant disregard for the truth. Even though his role in the affair remained suspect, President George Bush eventually pardoned six key players in the Iran-Contra scandal in December 1992, after he had lost his reelection bid to William Clinton. Among those pardoned was Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who was scheduled to be tried for perjury.

Although the scandal damaged the Reagan administration politically, there emerged no serious call for his impeachment. Unlike in the Watergate cover-up, no "smoking gun" linked Reagan directly to the affair. Although Colonel North always believed that Reagan had authorized the covert action, he refused to acknowledge having ever directly talked with the president about it. When John Poindexter testified under oath that he had purposefully kept Reagan out of the loop in order to protect him, the link to Reagan could not be proved. The one person who might have implicated Reagan, CIA Director William Casey, died from cancer before being subpoenaed. And President Reagan was never called to testify under oath. When asked unofficially about what he knew, Reagan professed not to remember ever knowing anything about channeling funds from arms sales to the Contras. He did not deny knowing about it, just that he could not remember.

The call for Reagan's head also was undermined by a speech he delivered from the Oval Office on March 4, 1987. In a vintage Reagan performance, the president acknowledged that his administration, unbeknownst to himself, had traded arms for hostages. He said that the entire operation had happened because of patriotic staffers who misinterpreted his policy in their zeal to defeat terrorism, to liberate American hostages, and to aid the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. Most importantly, Reagan refused to make excuses for himself and bluntly admitted that the whole affair had been a serious mistake. Just prior to the speech, a special investigative committee appointed by Reagan and led by former Senator John Tower of Texas had determined that the president—though guilty of managerial negligence—was not directly involved in the transfer of funds to the Contras, which was considered the more serious offense."

http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/RR/RR_Foreign_Affairs.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 06:13 PM

Nixon & Watergate, from "The American President" website. I quote:

"In late June 1973, the roof fell in when White House Counsel John Dean testified before the Senate committee investigating Watergate. He claimed there was "a cancer growing on the presidency" and implicated Nixon himself in the cover-up of the Watergate affair. A month later, another White House aide, Alexander Butterfield, revealed that the president had covertly tape-recorded all his conversations in the Oval Office. The evidence was subpoenaed by a special prosecutor investigating Watergate and by the Senate committee.

(In an unrelated investigation, massive financial improprieties were traced to Vice President Spiro Agnew, including tax evasion and outright bribes while he had been governor of Maryland. He resigned his office on October 10, 1973 and pled nolo contendre (not contesting charges) in federal court. Nixon nominated the House Republican Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford for the vice presidency. Under provisions of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, Ford was confirmed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.)

From this point forward, the great political battle turned on the tapes. Nixon claimed that "executive-privilege" made him exempt from legal subpoenas ordering him to hand them over to investigators. The special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, pressed Nixon for the tapes—and Nixon asked the attorney general to fire Cox. Attorney General Eliott Richardson refused, claiming he had promised the Senate that he would protect the independence of the investigation. Richardson, resigned in protest rather than carry out the order. Nixon then asked Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus refused and Nixon fired him. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork agreed to fire Cox. This episode, known as the "Saturday Night Massacre," seemed to many Americans to resemble a coup d'etat against the rule of law. Nixon buckled, and two days later promised to release nine tapes that Cox had demanded. He also had to appoint a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who proved just as tenacious in going after evidence.

Nixon had lost public confidence. By March of 1974 his two top aides and former Attorney General Mitchell were indicted. Nixon stubbornly refused to surrender all the tapes. A federal court ruled that he did not have to turn them over to the Senate committee, but that he did have to provide them to the federal grand jury and special prosecutor Jaworski. In July, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in U.S. v. Nixon against his claim of executive-privilege and ordered him to turn over the tapes. Meanwhile, on July 27, the House Committee on the Judiciary approved three articles of impeachment against him involving obstruction of justice and the abuse of presidential power. "Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office," the first article concluded, "engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations . . . to cover-up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful activities." The second article charged Nixon with using the CIA, FBI, Secret Service and IRS to harass opponents of the administration. It also charged him with maintaining "a secret investigative unit within the office of the President" that "engaged in covert and unlawful activities." The third accused him of obstruction of justice for refusing to cooperate with Congress in the inquiry. All of the articles of impeachment were approved by the Democrats and a small group of Republicans on the committee."

http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/RN/RN_Domestic_Affairs.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 06:18 PM

Clinton, Whitewater & Lewinski, from "The American President" website. I quote:

"Unlike any president in history, Clinton was besieged by attackers with a determination and a vehemence that bordered on outright hatred by his opponents, especially on the far right-wing of the Republican Party. The nation had never seen anything quite like this display of vitriol. By the end of his term, Clinton found himself, his staff, and the First Lady the subject of numerous special investigations. By the end of 1999, no indictment or specific charges of criminal activity by the president or Hillary Clinton had resulted from these investigations, although several of their Arkansas associates have been indicted, tried, convicted, and imprisoned—including Clinton's replacement as governor of Arkansas.

Whitewater and Paula Jones

The most serious attacks on the president were those which charged him with a White House cover-up of financial impropriety in his Arkansas investments prior to becoming president. The issue involved a failed savings and loan company operated by Clinton business associates, James and Susan McDougal, who had questionable business dealings in real estate on the Whitewater River in Arkansas. Once the charges of a possible cover-up were made, Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, called for a special prosecutor to be named. When the first special prosecutor, Republican Robert B. Fiske, Jr., turned up no evidence of crimes or cover up, Republicans demanded his removal. Under the Independent Counsel statute, a federal court replaced Fiske with Kenneth Starr, a conservative attorney and former federal judge also retained by various right-wing clients and anti-Clinton corporations, namely tobacco firms.

Searching for evidence of crime and cover-up, Starr began an open-ended inquiry into every corner of Clinton's life, both before and during his presidency. No stone was left unturned, including an unprecedented subpoena of the First Lady to testify about the surprise appearance of subpoenaed but lost billing records from the Rose Law Firm (in which she had been a partner in Arkansas) that mysteriously turned up on a table in the White House. Any personal or business associate of the Clintons, past and present members of his political staff and administration, and just about anyone who might have knowledge of their private and public actions were subject to subpoenas as witnesses to be questioned. Any criminal actions uncovered in the search for evidence against Clinton were subject to prosecution regardless of their links to Whitewater or to the president. This open-ended use of the special prosecutor's office marked a new step in how the political opponents of an incumbent president might use the law to target the chief executive and then determine if he might have committed a crime. (This inverted the normal presumption of due process, which is to find evidence of a crime and then investigate to see who might have committed it.)

Although the Clintons weathered the storm for the most part, it is clear that much of their time was spent dealing with their defense. His first major setback came in May 27, 1997 when the Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0 in Clinton v. Jones that the sexual harassment suit brought against the president by Paula Jones could go forward while he was in office. Faced with the likelihood of a civil trial, Clinton agreed to a settlement in the case, paying Jones nearly $1 million but without making an apology or admission of guilt. Later he was ordered to pay a fine ordered by a federal judge for his misleading testimony in the early stages of the case.

Lewinsky Affair and Impeachment

Just as the Jones sexual harassment case seemed to be over, the news broke in January of 1998 that a young White House intern named Monica Lewinsky had had a sexual relationship with the president. Clinton denied the charges on national TV. Starr then expanded his Whitewater investigation, alleging that Clinton had lied under oath in the Paula Jones case when he had denied having had sex with Lewinsky. The special prosecutor was convinced that Clinton had lied, that he had tried to cover up the affair, and that he had instructed others to obstruct justice by lying on his behalf.

The next seven months found the American public consumed by the Lewinsky affair, following every nuance of the investigation by Starr and debating the merits of the case. Nothing like this had so captured the attention of the American public since Watergate and Nixon's resignation from office. Startling revelations came out, including taped interviews in which Lewinsky described details of the affair as well as a dress that contained samples of the president's DNA. On August 17, 1998, Clinton acknowledged in a televised address to the nation his "inappropriate" conduct with Lewinsky, that he had lied about it to the nation, and that he had misled his wife. But he refused to admit having ever instructed anyone else to lie or of trying to orchestrate a cover-up involving anyone else. A stunned nation fully expected his resignation or impeachment.

Starr then sent his report to the House of Representatives alleging that there were grounds for impeaching Clinton for lying under oath, obstruction of justice, abuse of powers, and other offenses. After a vitriolic series of House hearings, all of which were televised, and the release of thousands of documents about the matter and their posting on the Internet, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that an impeachment inquiry commence on a strictly partisan vote. The televised House inquiry riveted the American public to their televisions. The House adopted two articles of impeachment—charging the president with perjury in his grand jury testimony and obstructing justice in his dealings with various potential witnesses.

The Senate, charged under the Constitution with judging the evidence, opened its trial in mid-January 1999, and it became immediately clear that a two-thirds majority vote to convict Clinton and remove him from office would not emerge. Those voting against impeachment argued that these were private matters, involving "low" and tawdry actions, and not "high crimes and misdemeanors" involving offenses against the state. Those voting against Clinton argued that even in private matters, a president who commits perjury and obstructs justice is subverting the rule of law, and it is that subversion that becomes the "high crime," and not the original offense. He was acquitted on both counts on February 12, 1999. Forty-five Republican senators voted guilty while forty-five Democrats and ten Republicans voted for acquittal. On the second article of obstruction of justice, fifty Republicans voted for conviction while forty-five Democrats and five Republicans voted for acquittal. Thus, the second president to have been impeached in U.S. history (Andrew Johnson was the first) remained in office, acquitted and with two years left in his second term."

http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/BC/BC_Domestic_Affairs.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 06:21 PM

Any more of you right wing history erasers care to argue about these issues?

I stand by what I said the first time. To suggest that Clinton's offenses were more serious than those of Nixon's and Reagan's are bizarre in the extreme.

But then, the post-Reagan Republican mantra conveniently became...

"I do not recall...I cannot recall".

Seems the Mudcat right wing ideaologues are stuck in that same Reaganesque selective amnesia he was so good at faking for the American people.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 06:22 PM

"The American President" series ran on PBS in 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 08:01 PM

Like I've said, GUEST, if it won't fit on a bumper sticker, they ain't got no use fir it.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 08:30 PM

It's the same as it has ever been. People are biased. Very much so. When they are biased in favor of a politician they make all sorts of excuses in his defense, explain why he had to do whatever he did, explain why it was the right thing to do...etc...ad infinitum. Why? Because they believe he's RIGHT!

When they are biased against a politician they attack everything from his looks to his wardrobe to the way he talks to the things he did and said...and they do not TOLERATE any flaw they can uncover or imagine they have uncovered about him. You could say they go berserk in their bloodlust to utterly discredit and destroy the man. Why? Because they believe he's WRONG (and is a threat to their existence in some way).

Now, this enthusiasm for personal hatred doesn't speak too well for most of us, does it? Isn't it just a bit small-minded?

I think we would be better served protesting POLICIES we disagree with rather than engaging in endless innuendo, hatred, and character assassination toward individuals toward whom we were prejudiced from the start anyway.

How well would most of us do if entrusted with running the USA from the executive office? I wonder.

My objection to George Bush is not that I think he's stupid (I don't actually know that he is), not that he can't pronounce "nuclear" (does it matter?), and not a bunch of other stuff like that. My objection is that I disagree with his foreign and domestic policy in a number of pretty critical ways. I disagree with his philosophy, it seems. This does not mean I have to hate him on a personal basis.

As for Clinton, the only other president I have seen attacked with the sort of vitriol he received was Nixon in his second term. It passed all point of decency with Clinton. No human being should be grilled about his private sex life in such a manner in a public forum, when his sex life has little or nothing to do with public policy decisions.

Hating these guys achieves nothing, folks. At least, nothing useful. Opposing a mistaken policy, however, may achieve something quite useful in the long run...if enough people oppose it vigorously enough.

Remember that competing political parties make it their business to get you to focus on personalities...rather than on matters of substance....and they also make it their business to ridicule and denigrate their opponents and encourage public hatred and ridicule of them. This is no way to build a stable and healthy society. It's low and mean.

And it's damned silly. It leads nowhere but to bitterness and endless conflict, and it obscures what's really going on in the USA and in the World at large.

I think when it comes to matters of real substance that the Reagan administration did almost incalculable damage to the North American financial system...and as a result of that...to the whole world society. But that's just my opinion. It is not based on hating Ronald Reagan, who, all in all, seems like a nice enough man to me, but a man seriously out of touch in some ways. I don't think he was mentally fit, at least in his second term. Again, my opinion, that's all.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 09:06 PM

Right on, Little Hawk, and what I'm about to say isn't based on hatred of anyone but I believe that the folks who are so steeped in hatred of Bill Clinton do not possess whatever internal wiring is required to understand what you are saying. They are the "true believers" that Eric Hoffer talked about. They are the folks at the football games who strip off their shirts when it's 10 degrees. I'm not saying this with one once of hate for them. But tons of compassion. Thats what keeps us going. Trying to win one back from the darkness that one must feel, the hopelessness, the utter loyalty to hatred.

Yeah, I may mess with Bush butmit is not Bush, the man, who I hate but his policies which are anti-human, anti-Earth and will not take mankind further down the road toward civilization.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 09:16 PM

I understand you perfectly, Bobert. I like sometimes to state what abuses I see on BOTH sides of an issue. Hopefully, someone out there is listening. People have far more in common with one another than they are usually prepared to admit in the heat of an argument.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 11:22 PM

Mick: I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you, anymore than I do Taliesn.

Your post took me to task because I did not reply to a GUEST. Before I even had a chance to reply (time constraints whatever) another Mudcat member stated an opinion and you took him to task. He refuted several points made by my retractor that you obviously accepted as fact, without any research of your own.

Your reply to Claymore was that you would need some time to research Guest's statements. You obviously took them as fact when you attacked me. Why research them? Because they supported your own point of view? Is that fair?

I seem to recall several posts you made over the past three or four years where you berated GUEST postings because they did not identify themselves and were presenting points of view that you did not agree with. I could research it if you wish, but I think your responses to Guest posts you found offensive were more vitrolic than most that I have posted here on the Mudcat.

As to your snide remark about my glib response, I assume you are referring to the one that I made in response to another Guest that suggested that I had a right to be a Puritan. I assumed Guest intended it as humor, and my reply was intended as humor also. Evidently you didn't take it that way.

The fact that I did not reply to the post I assume you refer to in your post (7:00 P.M. yesterday I think)is between me and GUEST, whoever that might be.

Kendall, Bobert, a few others and I were talking about lying. Is it acceptable? Were Clinton's lies worse than Reagan's? I expressed the opinion that Clinton's were worse because he did so under oath. A fine line, perhaps, but isn't that what the rule of law is all about? If you think it's acceptable, so be it.
What you think about it is your business, not mine.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Troll
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 12:19 AM

Clinton was pursued and vilified and eventually impeached precisely because he DID lie to the American people. Had he said,"Yeah. I did it. And the rest of it is between my wife and me", I don't think that any of the rest of the investigation would have happened. Instead, he stonewalled and was finally forced to admit the truth. By then, enough people were angry with him that the republicans felt that it was safe to call for impeachment.
It wasn't the sex that did it. It was the lie.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 12:37 AM

(quote)
"Were Clinton's lies worse than Reagan's? I expressed the opinion that Clinton's were worse because he did so under oath."

"A fine line, perhaps, but isn't that what the rule of law is all about?"

You consider Reagan's outright lie to the American people as not under oath as in the oath of the ofice of the presidency?

Well this is interesting indeed. Using your own measure then you're saying that Reagan's bald-faced *lie* from the Oval Office
in saying to the American people that he would *never* make deals with terrorists while he had already OK'd the sale of weapons to Iran to *illegally* fund the contra war , made officially *illegal* by the Congrssional passing of the Boland amendment
( with a Republican Senate since 1980 ) .
And this after truning tail in Lebanon after the terrorist bombing of a few hundred marines in their beds which gave the greenlight to the terrorist network that Reagan talked big but failed to deliver
any viable deterrence and thus subsequently opening the door to evermore emboldened terrorist ops that ultimately led to 9/11.

That's an awful *fine* line to pass your *ideologically correct* smell test. Add Reagan's active support of one Saddam Hussain
which is ,according to the Bushites , as alarming a clear and present *terrorist* danger and , more than ever , as a source of terror for something far worse than the World Trade Center attrocity.

I guess that 8fine line* is in the ideological jaundiced eye of the
agendaed beholder. You may not choose to rebut , but thankfully the record is there for anyone to avail themselves of. Now if only Bush dubya Jr. would lift the very vigorous embargo of his fahter's Presidential papers which are ,every bit ,the property of the American people and *not* the Imperial Bush dynasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: DougR
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 02:07 AM

Taliesn: You expect a response from me? Forget it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 07:45 AM

Oh Claymore, what say you about the information I provided to clarify your claims of historical authenticity now?

Is it possible you might have forgotten more about the historic events being discussed than you would care to admit?

The current president, just like his father, is as much a secretive liar as his father was--history just hasn't proven it yet, because it is too soon to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Tinker
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 10:57 AM

Dear Guest,

I will join in the call to ask you to join and pick a moniker. Yes, this forum has separate rules for unidentified guests. Too often they are only Flamers and Trolls. If you wish true serious discussion at some point you must "sign in" in a identifiable way.

Many of us have found ways to meet in the real world and have forged friendships that would other wise boggle the imagination.

It is a music forum and the best of the scholarship hereabouts deals with music. But as you've noted there is thoughful response in many areas.

That said if you choose to reject Max's (Above all else this is His site) free cookies. You can type in a consistet moniker next to guest. Having noticed you avoid flights of fancy I offer a few suggestions.

I considered several like Dr Spin, Marcus(Aurelius?), DubyaEBee, (to close to a current 'catter and too tounge and cheek for yur style), but how about WEBb.

Remember Jack Webb on Dragnet ( Just the Facts Mamam...) I cast my vote with the final selection. If you want to be part of the club, you have to join...

Tinker

Who likes her cookies with milk and a lullabye....