|
25 Jan 08 - 09:13 AM (#2244439) Subject: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Amos The New York Times offers an articulate, but to my mind woefully shallow, endorsement of HRC today, while pundits still say Obama Barack holds a lead in South Carolina. The big question about OB is whether he has the shield power and the "fire" power to survive the give nad take of a heated election. If he can somehow sublimate the vitriol that will be directed at him by know-nothings, bigots, and dittomongers across the nation, he'll prove he has what it takes. But HRC is ahead at present in the run for Dem nomination. The big question about her is what she has in the way of spine when real political decisions are required, and whether her compassion for the nation and her compatriots is more than skin deep. A A |
|
25 Jan 08 - 09:19 AM (#2244443) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST What I just said over in the Kucinich thread: The entire field of candidates, viable and otherwise, are a distressingly bad lot, considering the US and it's citizenry routinely claims the mantle "best in the world" at democracy. Of course, once you've brainwashed the electorate to believe that elections are the sole criteria of democracy, then hey--the power mongers got elections in the bag. Their bag, not yours. I see no uproar in this forum over the FISA debate going on in Congress right now. Why? It's all about the horse race and celebrity politics. Meanwhile, Weasel Cheney is addressing the Heritage Foundation, and ratcheting the pressure up on the Democrats so they will cave and make his custom made FISA law permanent. All while everybody is watching the celebrity horse race. Hey--is that Sylvester Stallone over there with John McCain? He has a new Rambo blood bath movie premiering doesn't he? I went and saw Barak--he's the Bono of the celebrity politician set, isn't he? What a rock star! Wouldn't it be great to have a rock star president? That would be just so awesome. Even Kucinich is a dire choice, because he isn't a very good politician. Sure he has hung onto his seat for several terms, but considering the legacy of incumbency, that isn't usually all that difficult. He is the perfect example of a candidate who can be right on all the issues, but wrong for the country because he isn't an effective leader. The whole system is a sham at this point. Your choices are a lying, cheating crook from the Republican wing or Democrat wing. Now, if your conscience allows you to continue voting for lying, cheating crooks then by all means, vote. Otherwise--not. Personally, I've come to believe the country deserves who they vote for, so hey--looks like it will be four more years of Republicans, eh? It's all so predictable--unless you vote for Democrats, of course. Then you are just downright delusional. |
|
25 Jan 08 - 09:31 AM (#2244459) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Amos I have to remark, GG, that between your timorous refusal to hold onto any name and your nasty vitriol about circumstances and conditions around you, you come across as just a bit of a slimeball. THis is probably a distortion caused by a lack of specifics and general media fuzziness, but I thought you might want to know. A |
|
25 Jan 08 - 09:38 AM (#2244468) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST Ah, the ad hominem attack. Is that your default setting, kind sir? |
|
25 Jan 08 - 10:41 AM (#2244513) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Amos No--it surfaces on occasion, prompted by vituperation of generalized negative nabobbery. My default setting is understand the source and respond appropriately. If you recommended specific courses of action instead of slinging generalized unkind remarks about broad classes of people, it would be less likely to appear. A |
|
25 Jan 08 - 12:13 PM (#2244593) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST For all you scorekeepers and numbers people, here's today's numbers from the Washington Post: By The Associated Press The Associated Press Friday, January 25, 2008; 1:06 AM -- THE RACE: The Democratic and Republican presidential primaries in California ___ THE NUMBERS _ DEMOCRATS Hillary Rodham Clinton, 43 percent Barack Obama, 28 percent John Edwards, 11 percent Dennis Kucinich, 5 percent Undecided, 11 percent ___ It doesn't matter what Obama does in SC. SC is a Republican state. What matters is, what can Obama do in NY and CA? What can Obama do in his home state? What can Obama do on McCain's turf in AZ? Answer? Lose to Clinton, because Obama can't compete with the women's vote, the neo-libs, the Bubba vote, or the Hispanic vote. The Clinton machine has had those constituencies sewn up for months. She will definitely lose some support in all those groups to Obama in the next couple weeks. But it's gonna be all over on Super Tuesday, but the mop up of Obama delegates. |
|
25 Jan 08 - 12:23 PM (#2244606) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Amos Mebbe so, mebbe t'ain't. Although I fear it is shaping as you describe, I think there iare unpredictable tides in play. A |
|
25 Jan 08 - 12:35 PM (#2244619) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST But the song will remain the same--especially the ending. Corporados take all, and stay tuned for another remix of American Idol. |
|
25 Jan 08 - 12:44 PM (#2244625) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Peace What is American Idol? |
|
25 Jan 08 - 12:48 PM (#2244628) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Peace Forget I asked. I googled it. Never seen a whole show. It's that thing where desperate people make asses out of themselves on television--a device for filtering thought, but one I do not have in my residence. Noticed it's a FOX media thing. WHY does that not surprise me? |
|
25 Jan 08 - 01:20 PM (#2244654) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: PoppaGator I pretty much agree with GG about all the stinkin' politicians, but I still plan to vote for the Democratic nominee and would encourge everyone else to do so, too. I believe that there is a qualitative diffrence between corporate toadies beholden to arms manufacturers and exploiters of fossil fuel vs corporate toadies beholden to the entertainment and software industries ~ the latter are far preferable, and the interests of their puppetmasters, in general, are tolerably compatible with the interests of human life, planetary survival, and other progressive causes. I mean, think about it: if Al Gore had taken office eight years ago, do you really think that our military would be bogged down in Iraq (or anywhere), or that our government would be trillions of dollars in the red? Peace, I've never seen a single episode of American Idol, either, but I know all about it, much more than I would choose to know, just from having the TV turned on for too many hours per day. You are to be congratulated for keeping your distance from mainstream media! |
|
25 Jan 08 - 02:08 PM (#2244711) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST I will rise to meet the voter challenge, as soon as you explain why you think voting will change the path we are on as a nation. False arguments like "if only Al had won" don't do a thing to explain how voting for anyone in the upcoming election will change the path the US is on as a nation. Voting may make you feel less squeamish about the road we are on, but it won't do a single thing to change the path of destruction this nation is on. Seriously, voting Democratic is going to result in the rest of the world suffering less? How so, exactly? Clinton or Obama--do you seriously believe they will end the cruel suffering being caused by US foreign policy? How so? You see, there is my problem with the "vote anyway" mentality of so many Democrats. It is to assuage your guilt, not make the circumstances for anyone better--except the pirates of capitalism, of course. "Well, at least I voted for ____________(fill in the blank with Al Gore, John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama), so you can't blame me for the world going to hell in a handbasket". What the hell kind of defense of the US electoral system is that? |
|
25 Jan 08 - 02:11 PM (#2244714) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: PoppaGator If the world is going to hell in a handbasket (whatever a handbasket may be), I'm not sure that you or I or any indivdiual can do about it. Unless, of course, you have some constructive suggestion? |
|
25 Jan 08 - 02:20 PM (#2244727) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST Yes, my most constructive suggestion is to stop voting, and unplug your mind from the illusion that voting matters, and stop feeding the multibillion dollar election industry and the telecomms. See what bubbles up to the surface of your thinking a year after the inauguration of the next president. Tell everyone you know and love to do the same thing, in solidarity with you, for just ONE presidential election cycle. Proceed from there. |
|
25 Jan 08 - 02:28 PM (#2244733) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: PoppaGator Sure, if you could convince everyone not to vote, or even a noticeable, sizable minority. there might be some impact. Maybe. Not gonna happen, though. There are already plenty of disillusioned non-voters, a few hundred thousand more or less won't even be noticed. |
|
25 Jan 08 - 02:38 PM (#2244747) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Q (Frank Staplin) Peace, have you not watched the Canadian idol thing? No I don't either, but apparently it is just as stupid as the American. Here in Calgary we get well over 100 channels fed into most homes; be thankful you have missed the TV virus that infects most of us. The debates so far have been pretty dull; sad stuff compared with the fireworks of the early days. Orators used to know how to stir up a crowd, now they even have moderators to keep everything nice and milquetoasty. Handbasket goes back to the 15th c., British Navy (OED). Dunno when 'going to hell in a handbasket' first was used (meaning proceeding to utter ruination- Webster's Collegiate). (Hard not to get twisted up into a GG argument; completely meaningless tripe) |
|
25 Jan 08 - 02:49 PM (#2244760) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST Ah, I believe it is a few more than "a few hundred thousand more or less" that are choosing not to participate in the MSM produced mass delusion known as the American elections. Roughly (give or a take a few a million) half of the eligible voters ain't buying what the MSM is selling. So what makes you so damn smug and sure and all that voting is the right thing to do? Especially when you know that it won't change anything? Isn't it arrogant to presume that half of the eligible voters in the US aren't doing anything to make the world a better place? I didn't say stop trying to make the world a better place. I didn't say be hopeless. I said simply "stop playing the electoral politics game" and see what happens. What have you got to lose? Join the Wavy Gravy Train and Vote for Nobody for President 2008. |
|
25 Jan 08 - 02:54 PM (#2244768) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Joe Offer Well, I don't know many Democrats who still believe the U.S. is "best in the world," but neither do I know many Democrats who think we're so horrible that we should spend the rest of our lives in sackcloth and ashes. I think we have two good candidates in Obama and Clinton, and I'd be happy with either, or with Edwards. I just don't see the doom and gloom that some Kucinich supporters predict now that their man has withdrawn. Of course, I don't believe that it's possible for a democratic govenment to accomplish more than incremental change, and I'm not hoping for a revolution. Being an optimist, I don't even see anything horrible about the leading Republican candidates. I just don't believe that any of these people are intent only on screwing the world and the American people (I did believe that of George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon - and I was proven right). And I'm overjoyed that my despicable congressman, John T. Doolittle, had announced that he won't run again (because he has to deal wiht an ongoing criminal investigation against him, I suppose). Now I can vote in a Democratic primary again - I have been voting in the Republican primaries to try to get somebody other than Doolittle, but now I don't need to bother. -Joe Offer- |
|
25 Jan 08 - 02:58 PM (#2244775) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Peace Giving up TV was self-defense for me. It started the day I considered ways of destroying it but leaving just enough to contine destroying it the following day, etc. T'was then I decided to get the thing OUT of the house and away from me. Kinda like booze and alcoholism in a way. Until the 'addiction' passed, I just couldn't have it near me. After a year or so I revisited TV and then decided I didn't WANT it near me. It has remained so to this day. |
|
25 Jan 08 - 03:02 PM (#2244781) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST I'm not a Kucinich supporter Joe, and I'm also not spending my life in sackcloth and ashes. Every day I get up and go out my front door to keep working to make the world a better place. This year, I've decided that includes not participating in the mass delusion that voting matters. Its a mindset. Clearly one most people can't wrap their heads around, but that's OK too. I promise not to think more or less of anyone for their decision to disagree with me or to vote. However, I do reserve the rights to my opinions. And c'est la guerre. |
|
25 Jan 08 - 03:26 PM (#2244800) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST BTW, Poppagator, I also meant to ask you why you would vote for just any ole candidate the Dems put forth? How can candidates or elections matter, if you obviously care so little about the person you are going to vote for for prez? And why would anyone listen to someone who says "vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, regardless?" That makes no sense. Isn't that just throwing away your vote? No disrespect intended. I honestly don't get the party loyalty thing, as I've always voted for the candidate I thought would best represent my interests and, IMO, the best interests of the nation/state/city. You are clearly a party man, so I'm wondering how you come to the point you are at intellectually? |
|
25 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM (#2244821) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Joe Offer Well, Guest Guest, now you're talkin'. I used to think that politics was the answer to all the problems of the world, that we could end hunger and poverty and warfare if we just elected the right person. Then I discovered that elected officials and most other people in power can do very little, that most things run along by themselves and all we can do is nudge the big things a little here and there. At the same time, I discovered that although leaders can't do much, I can have a profound and powerful effect on individuals. So, I decided to direct my efforts to what I could do one-on-one; and began to believe that politics is, for the large part, irrelevant. I spend one day a week picking up garbage and doing repairs at a center for poor women, and people on the street stop to talk with me as they go past - and I find that makes me more powerful than the President. The president is forced to live within a "persona," and much of his/her life is controlled by images and expectations - I am almost totally free to be what I choose to be. -Joe Offer- |
|
25 Jan 08 - 03:49 PM (#2244835) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST Actually Joe, I won't let politicians and governments off the hook like that. They could end hunger, poverty, and warfare tomorrow if they chose to do it. It has always been that simple for me. Our constitution says the politicians have a duty to us and the nation, and I've always taken that at face value, like it really means something. Same with the UN, and the World Court. I'm a big believer in all those things. But hey--each to their own, I guess. You don't have to believe in the US Constitution or the idea of democracy if you don't want to, and still can vote for the guy or gal who tells ya there'll be a chicken in every pot if you do. So far, in the US you can still use or abuse your vote any way you choose. And it looks like it. |
|
25 Jan 08 - 03:56 PM (#2244841) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: PoppaGator Well, GG, it's not that I'm so terribly loyal to the Democrat party ~ it's just that, in this era, at the Federal level, I definitely intend to vote against any and every Republican. I've been a regisered voter without party affililation for many years, and have voted for members of both parties, especially on the local level. I've been living in Louisiana for years, dating back to the time when all the Southern states had, in practice, a one-party system, and that one party (the Dems) included the economic ruling class, people who would normally have been Republicans in other areas of the country. For a while there, when the tide began to turn, the most attractive "reform" candididate in many local and statewide races was a Republican. But those days are long gone by now. The national GOP these days, as I see it, is owned by multinational corporations who have no allegiance to the US or to American citizens. They manage to win the votes of huge numbers of innocent salt-of-the-earth people by cynically appealing to "values" that they have no real intention of actually implementing, and no realistic prospects of doing so. I realize that not everyone can get enthused about holding one's nose while voting for the lesser of two evils, but I think it's quite important to do so. |
|
25 Jan 08 - 04:08 PM (#2244851) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST Ah, ok. So it isn't party loyalty philosophy (you know, I always wonder with southerners because of the Ole Dems), it's the lesser of two evils philosophy. Kinda laissez-faire voting sort of thing. |
|
25 Jan 08 - 10:12 PM (#2245128) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: McGrath of Harlow It's always a matter of lesser of two evils. Sometimes the difference between the scale of the evil is relatively insignificant - at other times it is pretty major, as it was in your last two presidential elections. |
|
25 Jan 08 - 11:57 PM (#2245179) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Amos Well, buckle up, buckaroos and buckarettes. Tomorrow is the Carolina Bump!!! Steven Colbert will be red. A |
|
26 Jan 08 - 08:04 AM (#2245284) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies The Democrats have simultaneously the best golden opportunity they have had in decades-probably since FDR-(even better than JFK, whose marital life was a disgrace)--and the worst luck. But if they make the right choice, they will reap the benefits. And the choice is obvious. The US is sick to death of cynicism. Mudcatters evidently are not--aside from Amos, Joe, Poppa-Gator, Bobert, and a few others. It's interesting that some of the most cynical are not Americans. But some of course are. At any rate, to win in the fall, the Democrats must turn their backs on cynicism. And that clearly means to turn their backs on Hillary. The opportunity to do so--and pick the anti-Hillary--is here. One of the aspects the country is most heartily sick of is the politics of personal destruction, with enemies lists and vicious misleading attacks. Hillary comes loaded with the baggage of both the 1960's and the 1990's--e.g. the Woodstock museum for the 1960's, and a huge list for the 1990's--neither of which she can ever shake off--not that she is even trying to do so. And on top of that, she now embodies the politics of personal destruction--and against a fellow Democrat. Her cynical bet on dragging Obama down to her level has done nothing but poison the well she plans to drink out of in the fall, as I noted earlier. Her despicable exploitation of Obama's remark about Reagan--implying he supports Reagan's policies when he clearly does not--is just the latest in a long series of revolting scorched-earth tactics--which can do nothing but backfire on her. There is widespread revulsion against Bush in the US-- not just among Democrats--and in the world, of course. So the Republicans had to find an anti-Bush. But they have done so. In McCain they have an authentic American hero--instead of a team of draft-dodgers headed by a disgrace, which is what we now have. While we are now graced with a certified boob, incapable of putting a coherent sentence together--or indeed anything but spectacularly successful propaganda--McCain can both think on his feel and has a sparkling dry wit--despite his experience as a POW. (Or perhaps that helped him survive it.) While Bush is closed to anything but his own narrow beliefs, McCain is open to new ones--"non-Republican" ideas--campaign finance reform, fighting global warming, among others. He is also, against a huge strident vocal segment of his party, ready to stand up for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And this as an Arizona senator. But McCain is vulnerable. He is vulnerable to the "throw the bums out" mentality which threatens all Republicans who are tied to Bush in the least. He is vulnerable if the recession hits by the fall--unclear now. Another vulnerable point is his support for Bush's blatantly pro-rich tax cuts--which he now supports--and plans more. Also his anti-abortion stance--and his declared intention to appoint only conservative judges to the Supreme Court. He is especially vulnerable on Iraq. The body bags--even just a trickle-continue. Each one leaving a shattered family. Even if the situation there does not degenerate between now and the fall--definitely unclear since "national reconciliation", the declared goal of the "surge" is virtually non-existent. We hear about the ballyhooed "Awakening"-- the rejection of al-Qaeda by Sunni Iraqis. But nobody--certainly no Republican but Paul--seems to draw the obvious conclusion that this means that the supposed threat of al-Qaeda taking over Iraq has disappeared--and with it our reason for being there--aside from "Kurdistan" where there is both oil and where the Kurds want us. (So a complete withdrawal from Iraq will not happen.) But we obviously can and should withdraw from the rest of it. But to beat him, the Democrats also have to have an anti-Bush--somebody who rejects the idea of divide and conquer and only appealing to the true believers--in favor of a "big tent". That is clearly not Hillary--but it is Obama. In Obama the Democrats have a man who is not only smart, witty, and full of good ideas--but who is also willing to put behind us the vicious partisanship which has ruled the US for so long, which the country desperately wants to leave behind us--and which Hillary embodies. Obama will get enthusiastic support across the board--Democrats, independents--and some Republicans--especially anti-Iraq war Republicans. Hillary will not even get enthusiastic broad-based Democratic support--thanks to her current vicious campaigning. The only question now is whether the Democrats realize this, and will pick Obama, who represents a bright future--not least for our children, many of whom are already energized on his behalf. Or will the Democrats be self-destructive enough to pick Team Clinton--Bill has just about destroyed his own legacy already with his "bad cop" approach--and their obvious thrall to the discredited slash-and-burn politics we have had for so long? |
|
26 Jan 08 - 08:21 AM (#2245287) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Richard Bridge The idea that a candidate for the presidency can openly suggest gerrymandering the Supreme Court leaves me almost speechless. The classic writers on constitutional law are all agreed that the cornerstone of constitutional government is the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. But rather to my surprise Ron, until you got to suggesting that the Republicans had found an "anti-Bush", we did not have so many disagreements just above here... |
|
26 Jan 08 - 08:26 AM (#2245290) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST Perfect solution for the Dems! Think like Ron Davies, and everything will be JUST FINE. Have a different opinion than Ron Davies and you are a doomed cynic and probably friends with Woodstock wierdos and draft dodgers. HAR----umph. (Haughty sniff). Some of my BFFs are Woodstock wierdos and draft dodgers--my partner in crime for instance! Nobody For President '08--get on the Wavy Gravy Train, man. |
|
26 Jan 08 - 08:42 AM (#2245297) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies OK Guest-Guest, John-John, Hari-Kari, Harum-Scarum or whatever cute title you choose-- Fine. But if you don't vote for Obama, let's have no whining from you for the next 4 years if the political situation does not improve. You're doing good work, of course, in Sri Lanka etc. But your political views reflect the cynicism that has crippled the US for too long. It's time for a change. |
|
26 Jan 08 - 08:43 AM (#2245299) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies "think on his feet" |
|
26 Jan 08 - 08:49 AM (#2245301) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies "gerrymandering the Supreme Court"--wrong term, Richard. And any appointee must be confirmed--which, you may note, does not always happen. To a large extent that depends on the political makeup of Congress--which is determined by the elected representatives (Senators). Exactly what system would you prefer? |
|
26 Jan 08 - 09:09 AM (#2245314) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies Get name, Guest. Or you are not worth our time. |
|
26 Jan 08 - 09:10 AM (#2245315) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies That's "Get a name", of course. |
|
26 Jan 08 - 09:14 AM (#2245317) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies And if you are Richard, by some chance--stop trying to dodge the question. You know as well as I do that it is a much more narrow one than your broad-brush attack. What system would you prefer for new Supreme Court vacancies? Be specific. |
|
26 Jan 08 - 10:39 PM (#2245874) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: dick greenhaus Ron- How about a fixed limited term for Supreme Court Justices? SHouldn't be a hardship for them, 'cause there are a lot of cushy jobs in the private legal sector. Say 12 years? |
|
27 Jan 08 - 08:10 AM (#2246035) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies Dick-- I happen to disagree with your prescription of a fixed 12-year term for Supreme Court Justices. That would ensure a huge political battle at the end of each 12-year term for each justice--in order to pick the next justice. I think there is much value in having the Supreme Court insulated from politics as much as possible--keeping in mind--was it Mr Dooley's?--adage that "Th' Supreme Court follows th' 'lection returns". I suspect that much of the current discontent among Mudcatters for the current system has to do with the recent confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts--who was, what, 50?---when confirmed--and likely to be there for a long time therefore---and the perceived Rightward tilt that has followed. But don't forget, it works the other way too. I believe I've read that though Warren was picked under Eisenhower, Ike was not pleased with the way that worked out. Warren was there on a lifetime basis--and influenced the Court in a liberal direction. But that was actually not the question anyway. Richard (and others, no doubt) feels that the process of first picking a Justice and installing him or her should be changed. My question to anybody who feels that way is: , since you do not like the current system exactly what process do you feel should be instituted in first picking a Justice and confirming that Justice? |
|
27 Jan 08 - 08:20 AM (#2246046) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST I hate the current Supreme Court and the right wing swing of the lower courts as much as anyone. I don't want to see judges and justices elected, so a fixed term limit, as we now have for the executive branch, seems like a good compromise to me. As does setting term limits on Congress. |
|
27 Jan 08 - 08:35 AM (#2246053) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies Ake-- Obviously, Jesse Jackson also won the South Carolina primary, among others, only to lose in his contest for the nomination for the presidency. However, his candidacy never struck a chord among many Americans the way Obama's has--especially among the young. Hillary's politics of personal destruction is, with Bill's help, turning into the politics of self-destruction. And that can only benefit Obama. Cynical manipulation of the electorate, especially by Rove, Cheney--and Bush himself--elected Bush and kept him in power. But Obama is the anti-Bush---while Hillary, with her slash-and-burn approach--brings more of the vicious partisanship which has dominated the US for too long--and encourages yet more cynicism. Obama deserves the support of all thinking individuals in the world--including you. |
|
27 Jan 08 - 08:42 AM (#2246058) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: McGrath of Harlow I'd have thought the logical way of appointing judges, given the idea that separation of powers is essential, would be to have the judges themselves appoint their successors. I don't mean it would necessarily be the best idea, just that it would seem to be more consistent with the principle. |
|
27 Jan 08 - 08:43 AM (#2246059) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies You don't want to see Supreme Court justices elected. Fine. But, as I said, a fixed term will guarantee a political battle for every Justice every 12 years. You are by no means taking politics out of the Court--in fact you are heightening political influence on the Court. |
|
27 Jan 08 - 09:12 AM (#2246069) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST Ron Davies, to say that Jesse Jackson's campaigns never struck a chord is just an out and out lie. Pundits tried to marginalize him the same way the party leaders did, but they HAD to because of the momentum and support he had among the dispossessed and progressives. Since you are neither disadvantaged or progressive in your politics, it is clear you wouldn't have been energized and enthusiastic about the Jackson campaigns, but you would have been a very afraid whitey. Jackson brought in more unregistered voters, including the largest block of young voters the Dem party had seen since Kennedy, 18% of the popular vote in 1984 and 24% of the vote in 1988, was the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, etc etc etc. His keynote address WAS historic, and one of the best speeches ever given at the convention. Enough historic revisionism here. |
|
27 Jan 08 - 09:24 AM (#2246078) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies GG-- "...a very afraid whitey". Nothing like a wonderfully objective statement, based on deep knowledge of the subject, I always say. Too bad we can't all be as omniscient as you. And, sorry, your accuracy is also slightly off in other areas. Advocating reparations for slavery and a nuclear freeze marginalized Jackson more than anything any Democratic official ever did. Perhaps your knowledge of history does not include the distant past, like the 1980's--and you are not aware the Cold War was very much on. You may want to remedy such gaps in your knowledge. That's all right, the advice is free. |
|
27 Jan 08 - 10:26 AM (#2246121) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Richard Bridge Well, if we're getting picky, the term for ritual suicide (seppuku) is more correctly rendered "Hara-Kiri" than "Hari-Kari". Higher court Judges should be appointed by a non-political person (like the Lord Chancellor except that he combined political with non-political offices) for the excellence of their judging. A really good measure is to see how often while in other judging positions (eg lower courts) they are successfully appealed against. The more errors, the less likely to be a good judge. Parliament should not be involved. Judges are not legislators. There are many judgments to be found from the UK House of Lords in whicn the judges say that the law should be changed but that that is a job for Parliament. That is absolutely right. Separation of powers. Otherwise there are no checks and balances. |
|
27 Jan 08 - 10:40 AM (#2246133) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies " a non-political person"-- 1) As determined by whom? 2) Exactly where do you propose to find this marvel? |
|
27 Jan 08 - 11:35 AM (#2246184) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Janie All the focus is on the presidential candidates, but it seems to me that the make up of Congress is going to be at least as important and I hope people are paying attention to that in our home States. Nationwide, I don't know how many seats are up for grabs. A more liberal and progressive Congress could either push or empower a Democratic president. Without that, nothing much will change. |
|
27 Jan 08 - 11:37 AM (#2246185) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST Amen to that, Janie. |
|
27 Jan 08 - 11:46 AM (#2246192) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Riginslinger Yeah, me too! |
|
27 Jan 08 - 11:49 AM (#2246194) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Ron Davies As I recall, Democrats have about 12 seats in the Senate in play, Republicans about 22. Stage is set for big Democratic gains. Perhaps someone can fill in the specifics. Article I read, as I recall, predicted the only Democratic seat in likely jeopardy is Landrieu, in Louisiana. |
|
27 Jan 08 - 12:22 PM (#2246212) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Stringsinger The Democratic Three Stooges. Pick one. Dennis is the only voice in the wilderness. Frank |
|
27 Jan 08 - 12:26 PM (#2246223) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: Richard Bridge We'll lend you one for a suitable fee, Ron. Why don't you study other countries, or would that be un-american? |
|
27 Jan 08 - 12:32 PM (#2246230) Subject: RE: BS: On the Democratic Primary Campaigns From: GUEST,GUEST Here's the thing. It ain't about race and it ain't about right vs left. With the millenium generation, it's about directions of the compass (New South, New West) and volunteering, not voting. The old seats of power (Northeast, Old South, Midwest) ain't where it's happening for the millenium generation--and they are an even bigger generation than the Boomers. They are so NOT about Ron Davies. Or Azizi, for that matter (sorry, Azizi, I like you but you are kinda backward looking and navel gazing, IMO). |