|
17 Oct 00 - 09:44 PM (#321429) Subject: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Lonesome EJ Theater in the Round this time.I think Gore needs a very strong performance in this debate. |
|
17 Oct 00 - 10:05 PM (#321446) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: catspaw49 At the moment, I kinda' wish Jim Lehrer would take a hike and let the thing get a bit out of control. I know they agred on rules, but I'd love to see one TO one. Spaw |
|
18 Oct 00 - 12:46 AM (#321532) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Why set rules anyway? Gore doesn't respect them. Makes it a bit one-sided when one debater does adhere to the rules and the other, who will do anything, or say anything to win the election, pays no attention to the rules. It doesn't help when the moderator will not enforce the rules. Anyone who believes Al Gore, and all the promises he made, should call me because I have some prime beachfront property I'd like to sell them in Yuma, Arizona. DougR |
|
18 Oct 00 - 12:47 AM (#321533) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: katlaughing I think Jim Lehrer did a lousy job compared to Bernard Shaw. Gore did a good job, IMO. Bush just looked and sounded dumb and dumber. If he doesn't trust the federal government why does he want to become a major part of it. If he doesn't want the government telling people what they can and cannot do for healthcare, why does he then want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Also, I got pissed at the commentators who talked about Gore being aggressive and commanding as though those were bad things. Don't we want a leader who can be both of those? I think the really pathetic thing about this whole election is that they are both trying to please everyone; they don't want to ruffle anyone's sensibilities so they pander to all, thus giving us a bland diet with no passion to entice voters to get interested and involved. It is a sorry state of affairs, that Lowered Expectations I spoke about before; I think we should ALL register as Independents. Make them squirm and really wonder what is going on! |
|
18 Oct 00 - 12:50 AM (#321535) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Lonesome EJ This was definitely Gore's best performance.He actually looked energized,and seemed much more prepared for the questions than did Bush.The format reminded me of two attorneys addressing the courtroom and the jury, and I certainly felt that Gore was more comfortable in the format than Bush. Bush actually seemed disoriented at times,and his answer to the Farmer's question seemed like he was trying to fill his two minutes with the Death Tax and feeding the world.I am getting the feeling,as well, that Bush has no concrete budget plan in place,or at least not one he understands well enough to defend with specifics. |
|
18 Oct 00 - 12:56 AM (#321537) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR You know what REALLY pisses me off? Both candidates are so programmed they come across as robots. I want all parties to RECOGNIZE that I said ... both candidates! I don't think it would make any difference who the candidates are, they would come across the same. I don't understand why the differences between the two parties cannot simply be stated, and the people vote the way they believe is best for the country. Oops! I Want to emphasize that I said, "for the country," not what is best for ME! Unfortunately, I fear that we expect too much from our government. We want government to solve ALL our problems. It can't. DougR |
|
18 Oct 00 - 12:59 AM (#321539) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: thosp Hey Doug --- from the looks of it - i don't think you'll have any problem selling that beachfront property to Bush |
|
18 Oct 00 - 01:06 AM (#321542) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: thosp on the other hand -- i don't think he'll have any problem reselling it for a profit |
|
18 Oct 00 - 01:15 AM (#321549) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Big Mick Doug, I find you to be a good spokesman for your positions. But get off the bullshit about respecting the rules. Bush broke them as well, and then made a big deal when the VP did the same. The reason he seems off balance has nothing to do with the rules. He got pinned. He hates it when he is asked to be specific. Such as how he promises two groups to be the benefactor of the same trillion dollar raid of the SS trust fund. That won't affect you, probably, but it certainly will affect many of the same people he seeks to attract. The investment option is bogus. If those same people were invested in stocks this last week, they would get their asses kicked. Further, we are due for a severe downturn anytime according to most responsible analysts, and it will last 7 to 12 years. What do those retiring during one of those do?? Dubya also tried to have it both ways on defense. One one hand he wants to have the best equipment, housing, and pay for the military. But analysis of his proposals by bipartisan groups indicates his budget won't allow for it. When queried by the single woman on benefits, the VP gave specific answers. Bush wandered down the most convoluted path of the night. When the VP indicated that responsible studies of the $50,000,000 were done by independent journalists, they found his claim to be incorrect. His response? "Never mind the journalists". When confronted by the fact that an officer of the NRA indicated that if Bush is elected, "we will be working out of his office". His response? "That wasn't one of my ads". That is as weak as when, during the primary season, over $2,000,000 of attack ads were run on his behalf against McCain and his response was "I didn't run them". The Vice President did just as I hoped he would do. He spoke about the issues and made the differences between he and Dubya clear. Bush was clearly not ready for this. Having said all that, this now comes down to the last three weeks. My guess is that the polls will show that Gore's performance will through it back into a dead heat and the next three weeks are going to be very interesting to watch. I just checked in for a moment to see how you folks felt about it. I need to get to bed. Mick |
|
18 Oct 00 - 01:18 AM (#321552) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Susan from California Gore may be wooden, but why have a Bush when you can have a tree? One of the things I wonder about is why anyone would think Gore was more rude than Bush, when Gore snickered more than five times when Gore was talking. A snicker is almost always condescending. Bush dodged quite a few questions, and even had the nerve to say that it's not the standpoint on issues that matter, it's who will get the job done. I have to say, few people are doubting that Gore is capable. I guess I'm old fashioned, I still vote the issues. I also deeply resent the implication of Gov. Bush when talking about his tax cut to the top 1%, saying that those who work the hardest deserve the biggest cut. So, because I'm not in that group I don't work hard? The food servers of this country don't work hard? People who pick strawberries or dig ditches don't work hard? That was insulting. |
|
18 Oct 00 - 01:24 AM (#321558) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: GUEST,Dulcineanot They both stink because they are sellouts to the Constitution of the United States, but Gore stinks the most because he's a continuation of Clinton, who has done his best to destroy the Constitution with so many executive orders you would think he was a fascist dictator. I'm voting my conscience this time around, even though I know he won't win: Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party (formerly the U.S. Taxpayers Party). He's on the ballot in most states. And most definitely NOT a sellout. Take care. http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
18 Oct 00 - 01:25 AM (#321561) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Sandy Paton The people "scoring" the debate, issue by issue, on CNN.COM/ALL POLITICS (viewers click to vote) certainly saw a different debate than the one I watched.They're giving Bush a huge win on ALL of the issues that came up tonight -- scores like 70/30, 71/29. If there are any Gore supporters out there that want to even up the game, you'd better join the scoring party right now. Sandy |
|
18 Oct 00 - 01:43 AM (#321568) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: katlaughing Thanks, Sandy, I did, however I noticed that on one of them when I clicked on vote, it erased my little clicked on dot next to Gore's name, twice; interesting, no? I heard opinions all over the board on all of networks, including CSPAN. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of voters are dumb. |
|
18 Oct 00 - 02:04 AM (#321576) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Yep, kat. I'm sure the whole thing is rigged to favor Bush. Right? Probably a giant rightwing republican conservative plot. No way could it be a true reflection of what people think ...because it doesn't agree with the liberal point of view. :>) Still love ya' though. DougR |
|
18 Oct 00 - 02:35 AM (#321585) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: JamesJim Gore....What a jerk! If you want to see how Washington can taint someone, he is the best model you'll ever see. He would step on his mother to become President. It's obvious that Clinton's shadow still darkens his door. If he is so comfortable with the "Clinton/Gore" record, wouldn't it make sense to lay back and let Bush be the attacker? He looks like a desperate man and desperate men will say and do anything. He also looks like a loser (I hope). Jim |
|
18 Oct 00 - 02:46 AM (#321587) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: canoer When the next president takes office, we won't be any further ahead, no matter which one it is. When we are placed in the position of having to make a decision based on nothing but tiny differences in behavior in front of a debate camera -- it means there are no significant differences in what they both plan to keep doing to us. |
|
18 Oct 00 - 03:48 AM (#321602) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Ebbie Sandy, I think the address is www.cnn/COM/2000/ALLPOLITICS. The other address didn't go through. They're evidently finished with the polling. CNN said that the final count was 46% Gore, 44% Bush. HOWEVER, they said that of the 522 people who voted, 52% identified themselves as being Bush supporters while only 43% claimed allegiance to Gore, implying, CNN said, that more Bush fans watched the debate than Gore's. I'm continually amazed at how differently we all see things. Most of the respondents rated Bush as 'more likable' than Gore. What? He snickers and sneers and sputters. Sigh. Ebbie |
|
18 Oct 00 - 10:12 AM (#321749) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Mrrzy This was a great debate, I thought. I also thought Gore kicked Dubya's butt right across the stage. But to the comment about voters being dumb - anyone reminded of the great exchange in Men In Black between Will Smith (People are smart, they can handle it) and Tommy Lee Jones (A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!)? |
|
18 Oct 00 - 10:13 AM (#321750) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: rabbitrunning What I noticed, in all three debates actually, is that Gore tended to look at the person who asked the question while Bush tended to look at the camera. I'll take someone who can make real contact with people over someone who settles for the illusion of it, if it's just a matter of personality. Fortunately, for me, it's issues, and I'm still closer to Gore than Bush on that criteria too, so I'm not going to get distracted by pr training. |
|
18 Oct 00 - 10:30 AM (#321763) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: LR Mole Personally, I'm so heartsick about this White House nonsense I guess I'll just straighten up my house. Or Just tune the guitar. Tellwidallovm. |
|
18 Oct 00 - 10:34 AM (#321765) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Big Mick Let me begin by saying that I mean no disrespect to Canoer, but I must respond to him because what he said is precisely one of the things I see as wrong with the electorate. He said, "When we are placed in the position of having to make a decision based on nothing but tiny differences in behavior in front of a debate camera -- it means there are no significant differences in what they both plan to keep doing to us." Canoer, if you will review the tape you will see that one candidate sought to demonstrate clearly what the differences were between each others positions. I have not problem with folks listening and making a different choice than mine. That is the essence of politics. But if one sat and watched/listened to that debate and arrived at the conclusion that they were being asked to make a decision based on nothing more than tiny differences in behaviour, then that person was operating from a preconceived notion and hence heard nothing. The facts are that this election is not two sides of the same coin. You have the choice of two people who attack the problems from a very different place. There are huge differences in their respective approaches. Mick |
|
18 Oct 00 - 10:40 AM (#321770) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Jim the Bart I think Big Mick captured it quite well. The next three weeks will be quite interesting. My prediction (if anyone cares) is that the Bush camp will spend a lot of time circling the wagons, trying to hold on to the perception that they are ahead. I'm already hearing more defensive statements and less substantive ones from Bush supporters. Gore will keep doing what he's done for umpteen years - pushed a long-held, finely-crafted, liberal, democratic agenda. The people who vote will look around and figure out that they're doing pretty well right now and decide that it ain't broke, so why fix it. Gore in a squeaker. Oh yes - all bets are off if the stock market finally goes into the dumper. When people's 401k accounts vanish they will get all panicky and could do almost anything. They may buy Bush's "If you vote for me I'll give you money!" routine, or they may realize that there are some serious holes in GWB's economics. Either way, the next three weeks will be interesting. |
|
18 Oct 00 - 10:53 AM (#321778) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: catspaw49 As you should Mick, you speak it well. Watching Bush refuse to answer the direct question on Affirmative Action should have been telling. And I'm tired of the Bush position that he brings something fresh. Already, a high percentage of the people around him are Daddy's boys and if he gets to DC, I imagine there will be many more from the administration that was voted out of office 8 years ago. Spaw |
|
18 Oct 00 - 10:59 AM (#321781) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: katlaughing Ah, Spaw, but he "Doesn't trust the federal government!" |
|
18 Oct 00 - 11:47 AM (#321823) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Rick Fielding Did anyone else notice just how amazingly uncomfortable both these guys were when they started "wandering"? Neither seems to have any physical grace whatsoever. A couple of times Dubya seemed to be in a panic as to where to put his feet...after shuffling a bit he sort of settled into a "bow-legged riding pose"...but without the horse! Al seems totally preoccupied with the "stiff" label, and kept trying to be "loose". Believe me, from someone who still can't dance...it DOESN'T WORK! Sadly, for me the content remains virtually non-existent, as everything that each man says has been so carefully "filtered". Not their fault of course, but I get the feeling that both of them would love the opportunity to be bluntly honest about their beliefs for even one minute. Oh what I'd give to hear Al Gore say: "Ya know folks, the guy that REALLY represents what's in my heart is Ralph Nader"! Dubya could respond with "I'm sick of being dumped on 'cause I can't pronounce the names of these third world dorks...I'd trade this in a second to own a Super Bowl Champeen"! Got our own (Canajun) election coming soon, and it ain't gonna be much better! Rick |
|
18 Oct 00 - 12:11 PM (#321842) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Frankham I think we are as musicians a lot better off then we were under Bush or Reagan. Clinton, as ugly as people have tried to paint him, will probably go down as one of the best presidents we have ever had because of his role in the Middle East, balancing the budget, and under his watch, stimulating the economy. He also had the temerity to take on tobacco and the gun lobby where the previous administrations caved in. National health insurance was a noble idea that was torpedoed by the insurance companies who tried to scare people. It's tragic that he made such a stupid blunder on a personal level. It goes to show you that very intelligent people on one level can be quite stupid on another. Gore may not be quite the president that Clinton was but his mastery of the facts and his experience in public offic in Washington in world affairs as well as domestic issues make him more qualified for the job. Unfortunately, electing a president has become a personality popularity contest rather than evalating the skills of each participant and their ability to get the job done. The idea of a president of anything being a "nice guy" is peculiar. The best pres's have never been nice guys and often quite ruthless. As to the question of rudeness, good manners is not often a criteria for those who would govern and lead. The most important qualification for a president is (and here I agree with Machiavelli and Neustadt) power and humanitarian idealism. The first without the second makes dictators. The second without the first makes for a weak pres. I wouldn't want that job. I see nothing holy in it. Kennedy, Lincoln, Washinton, FDR etc. were all sonsabitches when they had to be. I love what Nader says but I think he works best as a conscience and a gadfly. I don't know if he could govern. Can he really get his mind around foreign policy? Frank Frank |
|
18 Oct 00 - 12:28 PM (#321850) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Lonesome EJ Mick said "The investment option is bogus. If those same people were invested in stocks this last week, they would get their asses kicked. Further, we are due for a severe downturn anytime according to most responsible analysts, and it will last 7 to 12 years." I have to agree entirely. The reason that Social Security funds earn such low return is that they are ultra-safe low-risk investment.You can't earn the kind of returns that Bush is suggesting,and not encounter risk...the risk of losing all interest income on your funds,or even ALL of the funds. I people are allowed,at age 27, to invest a substantial amount of their Social Security funds in high-risk investments,and they should lose those funds,what does the government do when it comes time for them to retire?Say "sorry,you gambled and lost.Now starve." I don't think so.I think the government will be called upon to contribute funds for these individual regardless of their poor judgement or bad luck. |
|
18 Oct 00 - 12:29 PM (#321851) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Mrrzy I can't remember whom I am quoting but I fear, I fear... And just out of curiosity, what SHOULD they have said for the one question for which they obviously, neither of them, had a prepared answer? I refer to What issues would you use to get the YOUNG PEOPLE interested in politics again? I was talking with my politico friend (whose pulse is on the finger of the nation, or something) and he counldn't think of a thing. I thought of 2: for young women (and men too), abortion. For young men (and women too), the military. What Would You Have Said? |
|
18 Oct 00 - 01:19 PM (#321899) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Susan from California Mrzzy, I definately would have mentioned Supreme Court nominations, because they will be around for a looooong time. I might have been quick enough to mention that things are really pretty good for most of the country right now, so it is somewhat natural for young people to be complacent. But that *should* things go bad, that I would do everything in my power to help those who need it. When I first heard Gore's answer I was disapointed, but when I heard a replay, I thought his answer was decent. Not great, but decent. |
|
18 Oct 00 - 01:36 PM (#321921) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Was I the only one that was shocked that not one question related to the abortion issue? I fully expected that at least one question on the right to choose would be asked. If one was, and I missed it, someone can set me right. DougR
duplicate posting deleted |
|
18 Oct 00 - 06:19 PM (#322193) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Greg F. Lets add a little historical perspective, for those who seem to think there's no difference between the candidates. Give this a read: CLICK HERE Best, Greg |
|
18 Oct 00 - 06:34 PM (#322206) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR I read it Greg. I'd refer to it as something other than "presenting a historical perspective, though." I'd describe it as one more man's opinion. DougR |
|
18 Oct 00 - 07:35 PM (#322257) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: GUEST,Big Mick Of course you would, Doug. But once again, that is just because it is not flattering to your side, or more correctly, it is much more beneficial to the Democratic side. But seeing as how you have taken upon yourself to act like Dubya, I believe I will pin you down. Or will you be like Dubya and just not answer? The question is simple. What part of the the facts quoted in the article do you find to be of a specious, fallacious or opinionated nature? Do you deny the effect of the legislation vetoed? Did the author misquote or untruthfully tell any of the facts? I would love to hear your response. We might as well debate it for the good citizens of the Village of Mudcat. Mick
duplicate posting deleted |
|
18 Oct 00 - 07:45 PM (#322262) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: GUEST,mousethief (at the library) By all means Doug, please let us know where the article is in the wrong. As one who is still undecided in this election (but leaning toward Gore), I would like to know.
Thanks, |
|
18 Oct 00 - 07:48 PM (#322265) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: MarkS As with any or our elections the result is preordained. Come the Wednesday after the election: The government wins The people loose. Let me get back on my dead horse and flog away some more and say "Vote for Ralph!" MarkS |
|
18 Oct 00 - 08:34 PM (#322307) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: harpgirl Did anyone else notice that every time Dubbya got flustered he tended to sniff? Any thoughts on this? |
|
19 Oct 00 - 12:50 AM (#322457) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Yeah, Harpgirl, it is a well known fact that George W. Bush is plagued by hayfever. Mick: I'll take a look at the article again and reply to your challenge. I would think, though, that you are attracted to the article because it favors YOUR side. Es so? Is it so unreasonable that it turned me off because, as I read it, it appeared to be very biased against what I believe? DougR |
|
19 Oct 00 - 12:23 PM (#322566) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Ok, Mick, I've read the Eric Alterman article in "The Nation" more closely, and read it one more time to be sure I wasn't missing something you and Greg saw that I didn't. I see nothing in the article that would cause me to change the post I made earlier. It is a well written article in which Alterman is critical of both parties in the first three paragraphs, throws in some good words for Nader, and then prognosticates on what MIGHT have happend had Clinton lost the elections of 1992 and 1996. Unless Alterman is blessed with some of those extradinary gifts that have been discussed in other Mudcat threads, recently, he has no more idea what might have happend duringg the last eight years than I do! He is expressing HIS opinion (which obviously you and many others here at the Mudcat share) of what MIGHT have happend! Some of us here at the Mudcat probably do not believe that many of the things he predicts would have happend, had they happend, would be as tragic as you, Greg and perhaps the majority of others here at the Mudcat might feel. It's just an article in a magazine, Mick. With respect, DougR |
|
19 Oct 00 - 12:37 PM (#322575) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Frankham Greg, Thank you for that excellent article. It makes me remember why I used to subscribe to the Nation. If by some unfortunate circumstances the American public elects Bush to the presidency, in about less than a year's time, there will be a massive bout of nostalgia for the prosperous Clinton years. Bush is ill-equipped to do anything constructive about foreign policy and will turn all of his decision making over to Cheney and the rest of the reactionary hawks. (Richard Perle, the Prince of Darkness, the man whose solution to world problems is to nuke 'em). Bush has no plan to cover any of the exigencies of international terrorism. HIs ABM system will bankrupt the country. Look what the arms race had done for the former Soviet Union. There is perhaps the interesting idea that under the spectre of a Bush shadow, there may be a re-emergence of the radical folksinger. :) Unforunately the country isn't ready for Nader, as fine a candidate as he is, but I hope all those Nader folks will hold their nose and vote for Gore. Otherwise, we'll all be Bushwhacked! Frank |
|
19 Oct 00 - 12:42 PM (#322581) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Ebbie DougR, in the six (6) chapters in that article are many elements your take on it doesn't begin to address. Ebbie |
|
19 Oct 00 - 01:48 PM (#322623) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Whistle Stop Well, I occupy a different place on the political spectrum than Doug R does. But I think he has a point that we can all acknowledge, regardless of our political persuasions. Alterman makes a valid point in arguing that there are real, substantive differences between the candidates. But his reconstruction what would have happened in the last eight years without Clinton IS pretty preposterous, and he overstates his case pretty severely in other respects -- whether he is suggesting that Johnson got us into Vietnam all by himself (implying that the broad Congressional and popular support for the war was just an insignificant detail), or that the EPA is truly an agency that has the power and will to protect the public from "corporate rapacity" when left to its own devices, or that GWB has squandered an opportunity to magically transform Texas into a pollution-free oasis (I suppose an Executive Order from Austin could somehow do away with the tremendous concentration of oil and petrochemical industries in Texas, at the same time that it guarantees economic security to the state's labor force). Doug R shouldn't necessarily feel obligated to rebut this guy point-for-point -- if we step back and look at this honestly, I think we will all recognize that Alterman is a partisan, and has overstated his partisan case for maximum effect. It is important to remember that the campaign is one thing, and the Presidency is another. |
|
19 Oct 00 - 01:54 PM (#322630) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Lonesome EJ I don't fear Bush's proposed policies as much as I'm starting to fear his lack of a specific plan.When he said (to paraphrase) "there's just too much talk about issues.What the American people need to know is who can lead" I had a realization: I think Bush is a fairly well-intentioned man who has a basic philosophy of government,but he has not evolved a specific and cohesive plan for a presidency,because he thinks he'll figure it out when he gets there,just as he did the Texas Governorship.I'm not comfortable with that. |
|
19 Oct 00 - 02:02 PM (#322637) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Whistle Stop Sorry, I didn't finish that last thought. I think it is important to remember that much of what a President focuses his energies on once he is in office is out of his control. He can use the "bully pulpit" to express his preference for particular policy directions or initiatives, and he can try to advance the causes that he spoke about in the campaign. But he will also have to deal with all sorts of issues and crises that he didn't envision when he was campaigning (particularly in foreign affairs, which have received scant attention in this campaign), and he will have to coerce/cajole/impel others to join in support of his causes. To me this means that the "issues" part of the campaign -- while important -- is not the whole picture. We also need to take the measure of the man (or woman, whenever that day finally comes). So as much as I am disappointed in the "show business" aspects of our current political landscape, there is some value in trying to rate the intangibles. Just a thought. |
|
19 Oct 00 - 02:10 PM (#322643) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: catspaw49 I'm bothered by the very popularity contest, but then again, I don't know why I should be. Who can do the job has taken a back seat and I think that Bush's statement is simply the proof. I wasn't too choked up over the folks in Dad's administration and Junior is surrounding himself with the same. I wonder if Dad's going to get an official title should Junior be elected (outside of "Former President"). I've already had that "vision of America" ....thanks, I'll pass on a second helping. Leej is correct in that analysis. I'm simply amazed when those post-debate polls show Bush to be more believable. Believe what??? The guy has a helluva' future with the Arthur Murray folks if he isn't elected. Spaw |
|
19 Oct 00 - 02:14 PM (#322646) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: McGrath of Harlow I still think they should say noone can be elected unless they can get a majority of those entitled to vote to vote for them.
Just think of all the hoops they'd have to jump through to get a result like that? They'd really have to go out and persduade people that they were worth voting for. And I can't see Bush or Gore doing it.
You might have to rerun the election a few times, and get by without a President for a bit, but that mightn't be such a bad thing. And it'd be very educational.
Maybe they'd have to bring in good music to do it, like in "Oh Brother where art thou"...
|
|
19 Oct 00 - 02:34 PM (#322670) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Greg F. What a surprise- it don't agree with Doug's pre-concieved notions, so its "just an article". 'Course Limbaugh isn't "just a bigot", if I recall a previous discussion... Fascinating, as Mr. Spock would say... Best, Greg |
|
19 Oct 00 - 02:59 PM (#322692) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Thanks for your remarks, Greg. Ebbie, I salute you, and I respect your opinion! I can't imagine why all your folks are getting your dander up about George Bush anyway. Listen to any pundit on CNN, MSNB, CSpan, whatever, and they will tell you Gore is going to win. So relax! And Whistle Stop, you're right! I have no plans at all to try to rebut anything. Folks are free to believe (and support) anybody or any issue they please. dougr |
|
19 Oct 00 - 03:20 PM (#322706) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: John Hardly First, As a conservative I do not believe that Bush "won" the debate. A conservative COULD not have "won" that debate either. Bush was very much the "deer caught in the headlights" but even so was able to give some pretty good answers. The simple reason a conservative could not win is that the only question asked was "What will you do for ME?". These are questions one would more expect asked of a monarch--not questions asked by people who understand how constitutional government is done--or the value of it. A scant forty years ago JFK was able to say "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Today that is a heartless quote. An honestly asked question; How do you think Gore would react if, in the third debate, George Will had been the moderator and the questions had all been screened as to allow only questions like; "How do you intend to fund your new programs?" "Can you name a federal program that has outlived its usefulness?" " Do you really think that the number of fed employees is the true indicator of how invasive a government is?" "You want campaign finance reform but you have made a habit of ignoring the regulations already in the books--shouldn't that weaken your position?" "Do you really believe American Corporations are evil, even though they employ most of America, fund most if its retirements, and operate within the law?" "Can you explain to me the difference between "profit" and "earn"?".
Second, |
|
19 Oct 00 - 03:29 PM (#322715) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Greg F. Yeah, he coulda been a contendah, if da freakin' ting wahn't rigged! probly a vast left-wing conspiracy!! Oh, please....;-) Greg |
|
19 Oct 00 - 03:35 PM (#322724) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: John Hardly Wasn't implying anything of the sort. Just pointing out the nature of the questions and the bent of the moderator and wondering if others couldn't manage to put their imaginations to the task of wondering what it would have been like if the circumstances were reversed. |
|
19 Oct 00 - 03:56 PM (#322747) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: mousethief What I'd like to see, DougR, if one exists, is a similar article written from a pro-Bush P.O.V., which asks roughly the same sorts of questions but answers them from the other side of the aisle. Then I could lay the two articles side-by-side and see which I believed more, and which candidate would do the least harm from my POV (not even hoping for one to do good here), and therefore vote for that one. So far the pro-Gore side has come up with a well-written article from a known national source which gives their side of the question. Will the pro-Bush side kindly do the same?
Alex |
|
19 Oct 00 - 05:58 PM (#322859) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR I have no idea, Mousethief, why don't you write the Bush Campaign and ask them to recommend one? Maybe Rush Limbaugh has written one. :>) DougR |
|
19 Oct 00 - 05:59 PM (#322860) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: mousethief Forget it. I'll just vote for Gore.
Alex |
|
19 Oct 00 - 06:37 PM (#322886) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Greg F. Well, nice try, Mick & Alex- but the outcome was much what I suspected. Wouldn't want to let them pesky facts get in the way of a well-honed opinion. ;-) I M H O Best, Greg |
|
19 Oct 00 - 07:17 PM (#322907) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Ebbie DougR- I knew you were a nice guy! :~) Mousethief, US News and World Report is a rather conservative weekly news magazine that has a couple of commentators who infuriate me, because it seems to me, as a fairly liberal person, that they shave the facts to fit. You might pick up one of their issues and see what you think. Ebbie |
|
19 Oct 00 - 07:24 PM (#322911) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Ebbie: Mousethief wasn't really serious about comparing the two articles and THEN making up his mind. Mousethief's mind as well as Greg's, etc. has been made up for a long time (just as mine has). I don't know that many conservatives would agree that the U. S. News and World Report harbors any conservative writers either, Ebbie. Thanks again, Greg. Your comments are most welcome. DougR |
|
19 Oct 00 - 09:53 PM (#323034) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: GUEST,Big Mick Have no fear, I have not disappeared, but as you can see I am having a hard time getting home so I can take the article point by point. And tomorrow, after working a halfday, I am in the car about 1:00 PM for a 12 hour drive to the Getaway. So this will have to wait until next week............politics are important, but one must have priorities, and mine is singing in Maryland, drinking Guinness, and fishing with Liam's Brother and Barry........for the next few days at least. But I will address this as soon as I get back. Mick |
|
19 Oct 00 - 09:58 PM (#323044) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: GUEST,mousethief (at the library) DougR: Unlike you, perhaps, I do not lie online. When I said I was undecided but leaning, I really meant it. I was hoping you could point me to something on the Bush side for me to read. That you could not is neither here nor there -- perhaps nothing of the sort exists; perhaps you just don't know of it. That you have the gall to tell me what I am or am not thinking, however, shows you to be an egotist of breathtaking proportions. Who in the hell do you think you are? Unless you have some sort of crystal ball capable of knowing my mind better than I myself do, you need to get a new hobby and give up mind-reading entirely. Perhaps reading etiquette books would be a good place to start. You seem to have deficits in this area. I was going to say something much stronger but erased it. Still, people who tell other people what they think (over the objections of the others) are AT THE VERY LEAST jerks. Fortunately I don't think that your rudeness is a reflection on Bush, and still entertain the possibility of voting for Dubya. I may go look at USNaWR and see if they have some "why you should vote for Bush" stuff I can read. I would in some ways be glad to have the simple-minded, blind devotion that you have, DougR; it would save me the difficult and taxing work of actually thinking out who would make the best president. Nevertheless, since I'm not simple-minded or blind, I shall have to think harder on this very important issue. Everybody wish me luck.
Alex |
|
19 Oct 00 - 10:27 PM (#323078) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Wow, Alex. It seems I really yanked your chain, and I apologize for it. You enjoy the distinction of being the only person in my life who has ever called me a liar. I have lived 70 years, so I guess I have been fortunate. Congratulations. If offending me was your goal, you reached it. Your previous postings regarding the upcoming election led me to assume that you had already taken a position on the candidates. I obviously was wrong. I have been a member of Mudcat for some sixteen months. I have never concealed the fact that I am a Republican and that I favor the conservative cause. I never, however, volunteered to take on the responsibility for educating others on the joys of Republican conservatism. Rather I have always taken the position of "To Each His Own." If you are undecided, as to who you will vote for I would suggest that you do some research for yourself. There are ample websites, I'm sure, where information on both candidates is available. Frankly, Alex, I don't give a rats ass who you vote for. DougR |
|
19 Oct 00 - 10:34 PM (#323084) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: John Hardly Mouse, Interesting thing happened. I was trying to think of something I could point you toward (as I DID take you at your word that you are undecided) but everything I could think of is percieved to be from a slanted perspective and I was trying to find something that I thought anyone would think of as reputable. There are periodicals that I would find helpful and I would trust but they are up-front about their biases. This is the "core of the problem" to which I have been referring--Newsweek, Nation, US News, NY Times, Wash Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, are granted this status because, in the main, they agree with a liberal point of view--therefore the liberal mind doesn't see them as "slanted" it sees them as "right/objective". To illustrate my point; Why is George Will known as a conservative (on ABC) while no one else is referred to by their ideology? Anyway, My recommendation would be to read George Will's take on the candidates. He's not particularly pro-Bush but he's definitely not pro-Gore. He might give you another perspective and one you can respect and trust. John |
|
19 Oct 00 - 10:35 PM (#323085) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: GUEST,mousethief (at the library) Actually, Doug, I didn't call you a liar. I said that while PERHAPS you lie online, I do not. I very carefully inserted that PERHAPS precisely so that I was NOT calling you a liar. Your 70-year record is unbroken still. It was not my intention to piss you off, but rather to indicate in as restrained a manner as I could, that you pissed ME off by telling me what I think over my objections. I don't really care if you care who I vote for, of course. I don't expect you to care who I vote for. Nor do I expect you to tell me where to look for information; I just thought that maybe, as an ardent Republican, you might know of a site or two I could go look at. Sifting through web search results for a useful site is a pain in the ass, and I was hoping to shortcut the process a little. Okay, so I'm lazy. I admit it. I accept your apology and apologize for making you angry. I'm sure you're a heck of a nice guy; but people telling me about my inner states (thoughts, beliefs, etc.) over my objections is definitely one of my very hottest buttons. I'm sorry I overreacted.
Alex |
|
19 Oct 00 - 10:37 PM (#323087) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: GUEST,mousethief (at the library) John Hardly: Thanks! I'll see what Will has to say.
Alex |
|
20 Oct 00 - 01:32 PM (#323401) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Whistle Stop It's too bad this thread got nasty -- not surprising, but too bad (never talk about politics, religion, or the meaning of "folk music"). Doug, I don't share your political opinions, but I have always found you to be a very reasonable guy, and I enjoy exchanging views with you. I, too, assumed that some of us have made up our minds by this point -- I certainly have (I'll be voting for Gore). Frankly, this has been a loooong campaign, and the election is almost upon us; short of divine inspiration in the voting booth, I don't understand what the undecideds are waiting for. |
|
20 Oct 00 - 01:44 PM (#323414) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Jim the Bart I think, by now, that most anyone who has read my posts would identify me as a Liberal. My tendency to support liberal policy is admitted. As much as I try to keep an open mind on issues, I find myself lining up with the "Leftists" when it comes voting time. I finally got around to reading the article cited above, and understand totally DougR's objection to calling it "historical perspective" and considering it unbiased reporting. It clearly has a liberal slant, which can be best illustrated in one phrase ". . .Ronald Reagan, perhaps the twentieth century's most effective hypocrite. . .". That opinion does nothing to forward the discussion and has no value, other than to warm the breast of those of us who fail to see Reagan as a great president. That it has a bias, however, does not invalidate the statements made. Even the speculation about what might have happened to proposed legislation has some validity, based on the history, voting record and statements of position by George Bush & Bob Dole (who, if you think back, would have been president over the past eight years had Bill not been elected). Given the nature of politics, though, it is possible that there are Republicans in Congress who would never had let some of those bills get to the President's desk if they didn't know that they were going to be vetoed. That's the way the system works. But that is neither here nor there. Unfortunately, the selection of our leaders is now, always has been and probably always will be a subjective process. That's why anyone micro-analyzing our little discussion (or the election coverage in general) would find more references to George Bush's lack of intelligence, than statements that illustrate or support this point of view. The guy has to have enough intelligence to have gotten elected governor and to stand this close to being elected president. And as viscerally pleasant as calling him "Dumbya" might be to liberals, it's not really working to convince the undecided voters that he ought not be our next leader. And you could say the same thing about conservatives who want Gore to take the stick out from his butt. And yet that's the kind of "analysis" we get, not only from the press - but from each other. One last point and then I'll shut up (for a while at least). Doug, I really don't know what value there is in bringing up the "liberal bias" of the press thing. I'm from Chicago and I read the Tribune and a suburban paper the Daily Herald. I find political coverage by editorialists on both sides of the issues; they tend to balance each other out, pretty much. You can find magazines that lean either way, too. A free press is one "conservative" idea that I support totally. Probably more than most card-carrying conservatives would. There is a "liberal" bias in the entertainment industry, but this is natural in an industry aimed at the youth market. Maybe this skews the perception of the media, in general. Then again, maybe I'm just too liberal to see the truth. At any rate, I look forward to continued rassling about these issues, and hope I haven't offended or just prattled on too long. Hope ya'll have a wonderful weekend Bart |
|
20 Oct 00 - 01:46 PM (#323417) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Harold W My son informed me of this. I have never heard of it before, but here is a thought. The "Zero Factor" might come into play. For those not familiar with this factor, since 1840, those candidates elected to the Presidency on year ending in 0 will die in office. Only one barely escaped this. So who do you want to be President of the United States, Lieberman or Chaney? |
|
20 Oct 00 - 01:53 PM (#323422) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Whistle Stop: Beats me too! If, after three debates, endless interviews, both political conventions, and charges and counter-charges from both sides, I cannot imagine what additional information would be required to help one make up one's mind. Just my opinion (and from I read you'rs too)of course. Bart: Excellent post. You'll get no argument from me on any point you made. DougR |
|
20 Oct 00 - 02:01 PM (#323433) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: McGrath of Harlow If someone is way ahead in the opinion polls, what's the point of going out and voting for them, if it's a cold night and you'd sooner put your feet up. They're going to win anyway.
If someone is way behind, what's the point of going out and voting for them, if it's a cold night and you'd sooner put your feet up. They're going to lose anyway.
But if it's pretty even-stevens, you might just feel it's worth taking the trouble.
So the polls now are saying it's on a knife edge? Very commendable. |
|
20 Oct 00 - 02:11 PM (#323445) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: mousethief It's like this: will the damage Bush does to the economy and the environment be worse than the damage Gore does to the judiciary? Can't tell yet, so I'm still thinking.
Alex |
|
20 Oct 00 - 05:43 PM (#323572) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: McGrath of Harlow Well, since the global environment effects all of us outside the USA, and so does the way the economy works, you can take it that people in the rest of the world regard that as a bit more important than what happens with your local judiciary in the States. We don't vote, but we have to put up with the consequences of whatever those of you who vote decide. |
|
20 Oct 00 - 08:20 PM (#323690) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Mousethief: You indicated that you would welcome some resources from the conservative side to assist you in making up your mind about the election. John referred you to a good one, George Will. Here are some more that you can access at the Drudge Report website (there are lots of liberal columnists at the same site too). David S. Broder Ann Coulter Arianna Huffington Chris Matthews Bob Novak Peggy Noonan William Safire Tony Snow Thomas Sowell Cal Thomas George Will Walter Williams I hope these resources aid you in your quest for information. DougR |
|
20 Oct 00 - 08:32 PM (#323696) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: GUEST,mousethief (at the library) I had a heck of a time finding anything online by George Will about the election. Just his most recent columns, which don't appear to be (directly) about the presidential election. Annoyingly, Google wouldn't search for George Will at all. Its "overused words" filter takes out the "will" and all it searches on is "George" which as you can imagine isn't helpful at all. I finally went to Yahoo and found his columns at the Washington Post that way. I'll look at the other names you list, Doug. Thanks.
Alex |
|
20 Oct 00 - 11:44 PM (#323774) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Your welcome, Alex. DougR |
|
21 Oct 00 - 01:00 AM (#323804) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: katlaughing Nice ta see you fellahs being so mannerly after those fightin' words. DougeR, Republican though you be**BG**, I still luvya and have never known a time when you have not been a perfect gentleman, full of honesty and the best virtual Magyck Massage Fingers I've encountered in a public place of cyberdom! Can anyone verify that zero factor; that is quite interesting? thanks, kat |
|
21 Oct 00 - 01:22 AM (#323818) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: JamesJim Alex, I find it fascinating that you deplore others who try to tell you what you are thinking (I'm paraphrasing). Seems most politicians and political pundits do that very thing (i.e., in refuting some opposite view they might say, "The American people simply do not agree with that point of view"). Of course, most of them base this on the latest poll they've taken, or if it's convienient to them, they just decide they'll tell us all what everyone is thinking. I don't mean to offend, but if you don't have the sense of both major candidates by now, you haven't been paying much attention (not said angerly, just matter-a-factly). You are not alone - I feel the same way about all of the other supposedly "undecideds." I recommend you listen carefully to the candidates (as well as ALL of the talking heads) over the next three weeks. No need to dig up articles. Just listen. Try to sort out what they are saying. Who do you feel is telling the truth? Who is using "gang" politics to tell a particular story (i.e., having all of their cronies say they same thing, just trying to convince everyone that they have the answers)? Who is doing all of the attacking and is the most negative? Why? Who is really truthful? Many pundits are not truthful. They sugar coat by saying nice things about a particular candidate, then lower the boom. I won't hide my stripes (you probably already know them anyway). Yes, I am going to vote for George W. I am a registered democrat who has found himself doubting the democratic agenda (for some time now) and all of their silly pundits who claim to know what is best for America. Bill Clinton sickens me. He has no claim to anything, except to being a brilliantly seedy politician. He has succeeded in turning off the American electorate more than any other politician in history (including Richard Nixon, whom I also deplore). He is a disgrace to our nation and a terrible example to our young people. He is a major reason the entire nation seems to be becoming more conservative (sometimes too far right). He was supposed to be the savior of the Democratic party....I believe he has been just the opposite. I don't plan to change parties, at least not yet. I am leaning more to the right than I ever thought I would...but here I am. I have other Democratic friends who are in the same boat. It was just a few short months ago that Al Gore stood with Clinton on the White House lawn and said, "my friend Bill Clinton will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents!" Never mind all of the personal political indiscretions attributed to Al Gore ("No controlling legal authority," "I didn't know it was a fundraiser," etc.). For me, when he and all of his cronies stood and defended Clinton after his impeachment, my vote was decided. George W. may not turn out to be any better....who knows? All I have to look at is the track record of both men. "Bully" Al has one ( a record that is) "as long as his arm." I REALLY would like to have someone return dignity to the White House. I hope George W. can do it. Most here disagree with me, I know. Some will try to justify Al's actions by saying, "He is only using political strategy," or "He is fervently showing how much he believes in his views - George has no views." Some will even say he is simply on the "correct side" of the political spectrum. I can't vote for a man who is so desperate to win that he reinvents himself at every turn. It simply comes down to integrety and honesty. He has neither. Sorry gang (he says, as he takes a deep breath and says to himself; "Feel better?). I had to get it out of my gut! Jim
|
|
21 Oct 00 - 10:14 AM (#323931) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Frankham James Jim, I respect and support your right to say what you think about the election. It's kinda' a great thing that Mudcat and the folk community has opened the door to dialogue on these issues. We have the right to agree to disagree. Clinton sickens you and you see no value in his presidency. It's funny but I feel the same thing about Reagan and Bush. Reagan was not responsible for the end of the cold war, Gorbachev was. During the Reagan and Bush years we saw the rise of homelessness, unemployment and cutting back on the arts programs in the public schools. We saw money spent on a Gulf War which put a strain on the economy but managed to help Bush's oil friends in the Arab republic, a despotic and undemocratic society. We see in George W the same views and if he is elected, he could send us hurtling backward into the dark ages of racial injustice, labor union busting, prejudice against gays and lesbians, and the overturn of Roe V Wade. I think that such a polarizing candidate is disingenuos when he claims to be able to work with deomocratic and republicans alike. He is too biased in favor of the so-called religious right to ever have that happen. He will be like Reagan, someone who has no personal views or agendas but is a mouthpiece for the conservative party who will do what they dictate for him. Clinton and Gore are Machiavellian politicians and do love power. Unfortunately this is true of the best of our presidents. Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy and others who were revered were all consumate politicians with strong agendas who would do anything it took to get elected to get their job done. This is what a politican does and it may sicken you but it's a fact of life that these are the people who lead our country. Bush doesn't have that kind of leadership quality. At best, he's like Eisenhower who really enjoyed being a general or his golf game better than the horrendous job of running the executive branch of government. Here's the question. Can the chief executive of the US be a "nice guy" or a peacemaker for two divergent political philosophies as to how to run the country? Bill Clinton wasn't able to do much with the Republican congress on some issues. The American people love gridlock because they invariably vote in one party for the executive branch and another for the congress. The judicial branch is a case of raw power. Whose ever in office will determine who sits on the bench. Politics is kind of a murky game where personal values can easilly transform into opportunistic and power-seeking actions. Glad you were able to vent your spleen and I relish the right to do likewise. Thanks, Frank |
|
21 Oct 00 - 10:23 AM (#323934) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Greg F. A man who reinvents himself at every turn. Hmm. Like a millionaire from Connecticut that talks with a phony Texas accent and pretends to be a good 'ol boy? And who pretends he didn't (and doesn't) support the Far-Right Republican agenda? Restore dignity to the Presidency- with an ex-cokehead & drunk who escaped jail thru his old man's influence & also avoided service in Viet Nam 'cause his dad bought him a place in the Guard so he could play soldier at home? And bailed out his failed business enterprises? And had the tapayers pick upo the savings-and loan scandle tab? And a buddy of good old Newt(& Newt's agenda)- whose idea of morality was banging a bimbo while his wife was dying of cancer & who served her with divorce papers on her deathbed. Sorry, I can't see it. Best, Greg |
|
21 Oct 00 - 11:56 AM (#323976) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: McGrath of Harlow "Reagan was not responsible for the end of the cold war, Gorbachev was." True enough. Now Gorbachev - he'd be all right as President. So the Russians elected that murderous little weasel Putin instead. Sometimes I think we'd all be better off scrapping the elections, and just putting everyone's name into a big hat, and pulling one name out. |
|
21 Oct 00 - 12:15 PM (#323986) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: katlaughing Frank, you remind me of my dad when he vents on politics, although he uses some saucier words. It is a pleasure to read what you have to say and I agree with you, once again. Thanks for posting. Greg, thank you!! I was wondering if anyone was ever gowing bring up some of those points, in the debates, or anywhere else. I've been very frustrated that when Gore has been attacked, he hasn't not come right back with some of that and also why hasn't he pointed out that it was the Republican Congress which has done nothing in the past 8 years, except go on a witchhunt against Clinton! kat |
|
21 Oct 00 - 12:50 PM (#324003) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Caleb |
|
21 Oct 00 - 01:01 PM (#324013) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Caleb Only have a second on a Saturday afternoon to throw in my two cents; please read the lead editorial in the on-line current issue of the New Republic (no time to find a link, my chainsaw is calling) - anyone with any sense can see that the choice is clear. Bush is the puppy of the business sector which is doing just fine...if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Go Mets. Go Al. May be smarmy, but he's got a vision for all the people, and W don't have a clue, and hates Washington D.C. anyway. He lied through his teeth throughout the last debate. He's a true states' rights guy from a states'rights state; let him stay local where he belongs, until the people of Texas wise up. "The politician is a dodger, he's a well-known dodger..." |
|
21 Oct 00 - 01:15 PM (#324023) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Jim the Bart I read a pretty interesting article about George W. in a magazine called "Talk" yesterday. It takes a look at some of the business dealings that took place on his way to his millions. I will summarize the article, but bear in mind this is from one source. I suggest you refer to it for details and cross check later. In short, he appears to have made liberal (pun intended) use of his family name and connections to build up an oil company which subsequently failed, but from which he escaped in the nick of time with a tidy profit. During his years of wheeling and dealing in oil he was not above stretching the rules regarding reporting on the sale of stock and using insider information. Never formally accused. The bulk of his personal fortune came from his heading up of a group to buy and run the Texas Ranger Baseball team. Although he put up relatively little cash, he was more than willing to be referred to as "owner". The article maintains that his buying into the ballclub was Bush indulging his love for baseball and raising his profile for political purposes. The team only became profitable after the new stadium was built. To get this done the article maintains that Bush's friends staged what amounted to a "land grab", again using connections to get the land at below market by envoking (or threatening to envoke) public domain. There was a side bar about a family who was offered one million dollars for their successful horse ranch, refused to sell and were told the land could and would be taken. After years in court they got $5 million. I had heard before about the "shady dealings" of the Bush brothers and this article was quite clear that, although George Dubya might not have broken the law, he is not the "what you see is what you get" kind of good old boy that he seems. Unless, of course, he seems to be an opportunist who uses his name and his charm in any way he can to get ahead. One thing I have to say about him, he is the kind of guy who "brings people together"; usually, though, when the dealing's done, he scoops the pot into his ten gallon hat and rides off with all the winnings If, as Bush himself states, it's the character of the man that counts as much as the policies he expounds, you better take the time to find out what that character really is. Bart |
|
21 Oct 00 - 01:18 PM (#324025) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Ebbie The Zero thing- Reagan is the only one since McKinley not to succumb to it, having survived the would-be assasin's bullet. But maybe the chain has been broken? Ebbie |
|
21 Oct 00 - 01:21 PM (#324027) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: mousethief JamesJim, you mistake me. It's not that I don't know what the two candidates "stand for" or where they stand on various issues. The problem is that I don't stand with either one of them. Some of my beliefs or leanings are left, and some are right. I'm trying to figure out, like a very complex math problem, which of them is more likely to leave the country, after four years, in a shape I think better than the other would (I have given up hoping that either will leave it better than it is now). Where "better" is measured by my all-over-the-map thinking. Like I implied above, if I were a straight party voter, or followed the party line of either party, then there would be no question, and my vote would be clear. The problem is that neither party really represents ME, and the complex jumble of positions that make up "my" position. You (JamesJim) appear to be just another person who has mistaken Gore for Clinton, since your diatribe against Gore is 90% against Clinton and only 10% against Gore. GregF is only slightly better, mistaking Dubya for Gingrich. Although I think Newt is despicable, and am very disappointed and disillusioned with Clinton, HEY GUESS WHAT! Neither man is running in this election. So telling me how despicable Clinton or Gingrich is doesn't help me at all. I find it very humorous that you and DougR both hold a large part of the American public in comtempt for still being undecided. Obviously you are both soooooo much better than we are. Better, perhaps, or just more simple-minded? You make the call.
Undecided in Seattle, |
|
21 Oct 00 - 01:33 PM (#324039) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: McGrath of Harlow "The Zero thing- Reagan is the only one since McKinley not to succumb to it, having survived the would-be assassin's bullet." Technically maybe, but... |
|
21 Oct 00 - 03:13 PM (#324078) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: John Hardly Mousethief, Like you, I find much agreement with either candidate impossible. What matters to me in a time where there is so much personal corruption in our leadership is the protection of, and protection provided us by, the Constitution. It is not a small matter to me that the courts are legislating and the executive is ruling by royal decree. If there is anything left, fundamental to our country, and fundamental to its success, it is our constitution. George Bush may be no more honorable than Gore but he has positioned himself to have to appoint judges who will better protect the constitution. John |
|
21 Oct 00 - 03:13 PM (#324079) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Greg F. Alex- No, no, you mistake me! I do know the dif. between a Bush and a Newt: newt's got legs. I meant only to point out that Dubya seems to have no difficulty with the machinations, and the agenda, and the "morality"[sic] of DeLay, Gingrich, Helms, D'Amato et.al. plus the reactionary cronies of his Dad he's currently enthusiastically embracing- and that once he can stop blubbering about "compassionate conservatism" (one of the more amusing oxymorons to be coined in a long while) to a gullible electorate that evidently has difficulty remembering what occurred more than a month ago, he'll revert to type- as his political and personal history clearly shows. And in concert with this Gang still in the Congress- and who never said a harsh word about Newt's behavior (too busy with the crucifiction of Clinton) - he'd be able to do some real harm.
Kat-
Don't get me wrong, tho- I don't think Gore is any sort of prince, either.Just that he's not poised to do the irreperable harm that Dubya & his handlers are. Best, Greg |
|
21 Oct 00 - 03:41 PM (#324085) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Carlin Been away a few days so I missed out on part of this....
Why Bush has come out of the Debates leading Gore:
Gore has misread the mood of the electorate and he has made the same tactical error that the Republicans made in 95. After they won Congress the GOP figured the electorate was ready for ideological wars....they were wrong. Folks didn't like Hillary's Health Care initiative, they didn't like Clinton playing with the military, and they were pretty pissed off about getting a tax increase when they had been promised a tax cut.
The Republicans thought they had a mandate to begin dismantling parts of the government, but people just wanted a brake on far-left Bill....they like centrist-Bill. When the GOP tried to explain their proposals they got tangled up in 15% here times 2% added to the 43% return off of this minus 12% for that....people's eyes glazed over. Clinton fought back with 'SCHOOL LUNCH CUTS!!!! KIDS GOING HUNGRY!!! OLD PEOPLE IN THE STREETS!!!' and kicked their asses!
The voters are still in the same mood. They want a centrist, efficient, and above all quiet government. Bush has managed to beat Gore to the center on nearly every issue. Gore tries to defend himself and his policies and he starts sounding like one of those nasty '95 Republicans....he starts talking percentages and people go to sleep. He then says he is going to FIGHT!! and FIGHT!!, and maybe even FIGHT!! some more. Sounds very noisy.
Bush beat Gore to the center and he is promising a quiet administration. One that will seek bi-partisan support on major issues. He doesn't allow himself to get bogged down in details. He has Clinton's knack for throwing mud and not getting himself dirty.
Does Bush have a two or three point message that he sticks to? You betcha! So does Gore...how many times did he say tax cuts for the rich? or Dingle-Norwood?
That's my 2 cents anyway.
|
|
21 Oct 00 - 06:15 PM (#324181) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR Strange. All of a sudden I don't feel so all alone. Alex, you have real knack for words. "Contempt?" I don't feel contempt for the undecideds. Those are your words, not mine. From what I have heard, the undecideds are not "a large part of the American public" either but represent a very small percentage of the voting public. Kat: Thanks. You get a nimble fingered massage from me anytime you want one! DougR |
|
21 Oct 00 - 07:33 PM (#324224) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: McGrath of Harlow From what I have heard, the undecideds are not "a large part of the American public" either but represent a very small percentage of the voting public.
But from what I've heard, the voting American public is a pretty small percentage of the actual American public of voting age - I'd have said if you don't vote you're undecided. (There are in fact quite a few countries where, if less than half the electorate voted, they'd have to rerun the election.) |
|
21 Oct 00 - 08:46 PM (#324249) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR With due respect, McGrath of Harlow, I don't agree with your logic. People who don't vote probably have a lot of reasons, but I would doubt indecision is a major one. Most of them are probably just too lazy, or feel all politicians are crooks anyway, so why vote for anyone, or maybe they just don't want to be bothered. You are right, though, in that far too few people exercise their right to vote. DougR |
|
21 Oct 00 - 09:46 PM (#324268) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Little Hawk Hey, people, American presidential elections are the longest running joke in the world, so don't take it all so seriously. People up here (in Canada) are calling the two puppets Gush and Bore now, which pretty well sums it up. Take a look at the video by "Rage Against The Machine" for a further cogent comment on the whole process. Bush and Gore are the two halves of a fruit that went rotten on the vine a long time ago. The entire electoral process in the USA frankly deserves little but contempt at this point...and by the way, it ain't much better in Canada either, although our campaigns only are allowed to run for 6 weeks, thank God. It's just an empty excercise designed to make you THINK you still live in a genuine democracy...rather than a dictatorship run by huge corporations, the banks, the Pentagon, and Wall Street. Are you aware that of the 20 richest private individuals in the world at present, 4 or 5 of them are members of the Walton family (who own WalMart). Did you know that WalMart makes its money by getting cheap goods from 3rd World countries where people work under what amounts to virtual human slavery, and that their routine is to move into a moderate sized town and deliberately undercut the main product lines of family businesses that were in said town for generations...until they go out of business...and then WalMart raises the price of those products and socks it to the local public, after eviscerating their traditional business sector? Regarding the above...there was a special article on it a few months ago in the Canadian news media, and on the Net. It listed the 20 wealthiest business people in the world. Bill Gates, of course, was one of them. You live in a society "of the rich, by the rich, for the rich". And so do I. My society is just a small branch plant of corporate USA, and we are effectively at the mercy of corporate USA, as are all the other countries in the western hemisphere...except Cuba which is blockaded and nearly starved to death for not playing the game. You people don't need an election...you need a new American revolution. Where are Washington and Jefferson now? You're not voting for democracy, you're voting for the Machine. By the way, I'm NOT talking about a violent revolution this time...I'm talking about a revolution of ideas, and a whole new take on why society exists in the first place. It might better exist for the sake of HUMANITY AND NATURE in partnership, not for the sake of profits. So don't accuse me of advocating violence, because I absolutely am not doing so. It is the prevailing system which advocates violence and glorifies it in its entertainment media, and in the world of sports. If you want to vote, of course, fine with me...but hey, Democrats and Republicans, the System is screwing you both and using you against each other. It's the old "divide and conquer routine". You should get together instead of wasting your energy squabbling with each other. Your enemy isn't socialism (which you could sorely use more of), and it isn't the Arabs or anyone else out there across the sea...it's the System that lobotomizes you through the screen of your TV every night, just like it does here in Canada, and cynically tosses you the crumbs of another "tax cut" every election, while robbing you blind up, down, and sideways. - LH Oh, Doug R - Beachfront property in Yuma, Arizona was it? Wow! Sign me up. I have a lovely bridge in Coldwater, Ontario, so maybe we can do a straight trade. :-D |
|
21 Oct 00 - 10:06 PM (#324273) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: DougR A straight trade sounds okay to me! DougR |
|
22 Oct 00 - 01:18 AM (#324323) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Little Hawk Doug - Good stuff! You'll like the bridge. It's a quaint old survivor of the horse and buggy days, and crosses the small river that runs through the village of Coldwater, Ontario. As for the Arizona beachfront property...man, I can hardly wait to launch my 30 foot yacht and go sailing amongst the cacti. Awright!!! |
|
22 Oct 00 - 11:42 AM (#324497) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Carlin There is a reason Gore is not running on the Clinton record. He is trying to position himself as an outsider, a populist who is going to fight the status quo....if he reminds people that he is the sitting Vice-President, he will be admitting that he is the status quo.
He doesn't want to bring up impeachment because, lo and behold!, these many months after the fact there is a majority that has decided that not only was impeachment warranted....so was conviction. He doesn't want to remind people that on the day Clinton was impeached he stood in the Rose Garden and called him one of the 'Greatest Presidents ever'.
Not to mention a great deal of Clinton's successes are rapidly going to Hell in a hand basket. The market has been volatile and the mid-East is on fire. We have troops in Bosnia that were supposed to be home 4 years ago. We have troops in Kossovo protecting Serbs from Albanians, after we spent several months bombing Serbs in order to protect the Albanians.
For all the administrations posturing on health care the number of uninsured has gone up since Clinton took office.
If Gore is going to FIGHT!!! all this....it wouldn't do to admit he is going to be fighting himself. PS. Little Hawk, I will take a little capitalist corruption, along with capitalist freedom any day over the stagnant equality of socialist serfdom. |
|
22 Oct 00 - 12:11 PM (#324517) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: GUEST,The Yank if he reminds people that he is the sitting Vice-President,
are American voters such cretins they can't remember he's the V.P. & need to be reminded?
these many months after the fact there is a majority that has decided that not only was impeachment warranted....so was conviction.
Which parallel universe are you occupying, anyway?
a little capitalist corruption, along with capitalist freedom The freedom to have your job shipped to Sri Lanka, the freedom to live in the only developed country in the world without adequate health insurance, the freedom to starve, the freedom to feel sorry for poor, downtrodden corporations & billionaires. Etc. |
|
22 Oct 00 - 12:12 PM (#324518) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: harpgirl Are you aware Carlin of the fact that the Vice president has NO power? kendall |
|
22 Oct 00 - 12:27 PM (#324529) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Greg F. Approaching the 100 post limit: Thread continued HERE |
|
22 Oct 00 - 01:34 PM (#324587) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 3 From: Carlin Yank, Kendall, left you something on the new thread. |