|
21 Apr 06 - 01:36 PM (#1723948) Subject: Obit: Dems better watch their backs... From: Bobert So, fir any of my Dem buddies here in Mudville be advised that Karl "Dirty Tricks" Rove has been reasigned to Bush's most vulnerable flank: the possibilty of losing either house in the '06 election... A loss in either chamber would spell disaster for Bush since then all those investigations that folks wonder why ain't takin' place, will take place... If that happens the Bush will look upon his 36% approval days as the good-ol'-days... So look fir a lot of the same ol', same ol' from Rove which will be yet another round of "Dems is fir flag burning", "Dens is fir baby killin'", "Dems want yer kids to be homos.", "Dems don't stand fir anything" and, of course "Dems are obstructionists".... Meanwhile the Dems will try to keep gas prices, corruption, Iraq on the front burner but Rove has a way of trumping real issues.... So, watch ya' all's backs over the coming next few months 'cause Tricky Karl is back in town... Bobert |
|
21 Apr 06 - 02:25 PM (#1724008) Subject: RE: Obit: Dems better watch their backs... From: Stilly River Sage I had the same thought myself, Bobert. They weren't taking anything away from Rove when he stopped working on the policy stuff. They were freeing up more time for dirty tricks. SRS |
|
21 Apr 06 - 04:12 PM (#1724125) Subject: RE: Obit: Dems better watch their backs... From: Don Firth Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince after studying the actions of people such as the Medicis, the Sforzas, and Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) and his son, Cesare Borgia. Secrecy, deception, and manipulation were the mainstays of these folks. But there was also a fair amount of use of such political tools such as a stray crossbow bolt fired from an upper window while an inconvenient person happened to be strolling in the garden below, a few drops of poison in a goblet of wine, or a quick dagger-thrust in a dark hallway. Secrecy, deception and manipulation are still very popular and widespread political tools. Actual assassination is generally frowned on these days, but it has been quite adequately replaced by character assassination. Dig up something in a person's background, or if you can't find anything, make up a rumor, or an outright lie, and start circulating it. It seems that to be accused is to be condemned. It's been long established that this is Karl Rove's favorite method. And he's very good at it. He managed to get George W. Bush elected governor of Texas against Ann Richards, one of the most popular governors Texas ever had, by spreading outright but very effective lies about her. One of his ploys was to garner the conservative Christian vote for Bush by having volunteers go to church parking lots on Sunday mornings and put fliers under windshield wipers saying that Ann Richards had a policy of hiring homosexuals in the Texas government. She had no such policy (one way or the other), but once the accusation was made, that's all it took. This put Bush in a position where he could make a run for the presidency. And, of course, Rove is still at it, neutralizing (character assassinating) critics of the Bush administration. The Valerie Plame leak (obviously vengeance for her husband's disagreeing with Bush) has Rove's fingerprints all over it. It would be interesting to see what Niccolo Machiavelli would have to say after studying Karl Rove for awhile. Don Firth |
|
21 Apr 06 - 04:27 PM (#1724135) Subject: RE: Obit: Dems better watch their backs... From: Wolfgang I don't get the idea. Why 'Obit'? Wolfgang |
|
21 Apr 06 - 04:45 PM (#1724147) Subject: RE: Obit: Dems better watch their backs... From: Stilly River Sage Meaning they're probably still "goners" because Rove hasn't been incapacitated by any indictments or prison sentences to get him out of the political fray. |
|
21 Apr 06 - 05:25 PM (#1724169) Subject: RE: Obit: Dems better watch their backs... From: Bobert This ain't 'sposed to be no "obit", though it might be fittin'... I woulda swored it was entered as BS but you all know me and my possessed keyboard.... |
|
21 Apr 06 - 06:04 PM (#1724191) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Don Firth Understood, Bobert. The ravages of the self-actuating mouse. But in any case, "obit" might be a little premature. There are grassroots organizations like "The Backbone Campaign" and others who are backing Democrats into corners every chance they get and telling them that if they don't start genuinely embracing and articulating the kind of progressive principles that the party is traditionally supposed to embrace instead of wimpishly searching for some sort of mushy, mythical "middle of the road," then they are dead meat! At the same time, there are a lot of liberal and progressive Christians who are fed up with having a loudmouthed minority of self-proclaimed "Christians," who don't know much about what Jesus taught, but take The Book of Revelation and a long list of supposed "sins" as the be-all and end-all of their religious view, claiming that they, and only they, know the Mind of God. "Screw the poor and go to war" is not one of the Commandments, and liberal Christians are pretty tired of a president who acts as if it is, and represents himself as a fine flower of Christian virtue. If these folks can get their act together, especially if they can start working together (and there are a few signs that this might be happening), then it should be a pretty interesting campaign come 2008. Don Firth |
|
21 Apr 06 - 06:33 PM (#1724207) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Bill D plus...I heard a knowlegable pundit explain yesterday that there are still "unindicted persons" like "Offical A" (who everyone knows is Rove) still in the prosecutor's list, and that so far, everyone that has been named by the grand jury HAS been eventually indicted. That means Rove may not be out of the woods yet, and that the new Chief of Staff may be getting Rove to a "quieter" position while he can....etc... The Democrats need to quietly agree among themselves to adopt a UNIFIED message and not undercut and snipe at each other. Just keep noting the list of Republican blunders and transgressions and promoting classic Democratic messages. It will work or it wont, but it will instill some credibility, and will be better than this panicky running in circles we have seen lately. "When the bear is seriously wounded, stay out of its way and let it bleed!" |
|
21 Apr 06 - 07:48 PM (#1724261) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: JohnInKansas Some time in long-ago prehistory (like maybe 1984) computers were new and the possibility of fairly rapid "milling" of statistices had arrived, a number of articles appeared, I believe in Scientific American, with a couple of "deeper" ones in American Scientist, that analyzed the "democratic election process." The uniform conclusion of all the articles that I remember was that it simply doesn't work. In a two-party system, both parties must be sufficiently "middle of the road" to get about half of the random voters. This leads to the possibility that one party that can "capture" a single-issue demographic group that can deliver 15% in additional votes has an absolute LOCK on an election. The Republocrats figured out that "fundamentalist Christians" represent very nearly the magic 15%, and in addition are quite prone to "voting the way their pastor tells them to." A bonus is that this group largely doesn't vote on political issues but can be motivated to vote on religious ones, so by creating a religious issue they're largely all "new votes" undiluted by divisions created by "thinking" or other marginal, fringe, lunatic, upredictable tendencies toward "unreliable" responses at the polls. Add in that "pulpit politics" remains exempt from restrictions placed on all other political activist and lobbying groups, and they're an extremely powerful political tool. With leaders(?) who tend toward extreme gullibility and are uncommonly susceptible to a bit of pandering, they are an immense political resource that has been quite "professionally" manipulated. At least one of those early "computer modeling" reports commented in depth on the effect of a third candidate, with the remarkable conclusion that with three (or more) candidates of significance, the "democratic process" will always elect the candidate unsatisfactory to the majority of the people. (A proposal was that when there are more than two candidates, each person should vote against one, and the candidate receiving the fewest NO votes should be elected. Surprisingly, at least according to the model used, this results in the most people being "somewhat satisfied," which is what most people naively believe a "democratic election" should do.) Democrats in recent national elections have suffered from the tendency for most votes for "third party" candidates to come from persons with "liberal views," rather than from traditionally conservative voters. Do NOT THINK that Mr Nader's "reluctant" campaigns in the most recent elections were "sponsored" by any one other than the Republican National Committee. The Democrats must get coherent and everyone with a brain needs to vote for the candidates who can win, even if in some cases it means voting for "second best." Otherwise, the Republocrats will remain in full power and we are Nazi Germany 1934. I'm not very optimistic. John |
|
21 Apr 06 - 09:27 PM (#1724322) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Janie Good posts, Bill and John. So, how can we increase the likelihood of that happening? Janie |
|
21 Apr 06 - 10:56 PM (#1724390) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Don Firth Unfortunately many people who are totally fed up with this country's two-party system and its Tweedledum and Tweedledumber candidates tend to vote for a third party that at least comes close to representing what they want. But the chances of a third party garnering enough votes to actually elect someone are slim to none, as we have seen. You try to point that out to some folks and the mulish response you often get is that while I am admittedly voting for what they agree is the lesser of two crooks, they are keeping their integrity pristine and pure by voting for the good guy, even though they know he doesn't have the chance of a snowball in a pizza oven. Piss-poor tactics when it practically guarantees that you're going to wind up with the crookeder of two crooks. This isn't the only system. There are countries that have several parties, and their laws require that there be proportional representation in their governments. This means that to accomplish something they have to coalition-build and compromise, so nothing can go too radically wrong. There is also preferential voting, where you rank the candidates; if your first choice doesn't garner enough votes, your vote goes to your second choice, and so on. I'm sort of fond of the system they used in ancient Athens. They chose their public officials by lottery from the citizenry at large. And it behooved their officials to behave themselves, because at the end of their term in office, they were judged by a jury of 501 citizens and held accountable—either praised and honored, or ostracized (lost their citizenship for a period of time, or sometimes permanently, and often had to go into exile). Democracy doesn't necessarily mean voting in elections or majority rule. There are lots of variations, and it's still democracy (government by the people). Democracy isn't just "making the world safe for American business." But since the present system serves the established special interests quite well, the chances of its being changed and improved in any way are practically nil. So you have to do what you have to do. Vote for the lesser of two weevils, even if you have to hold your nose while you do it. Sad, but true. Don Firth |
|
21 Apr 06 - 11:17 PM (#1724398) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Bobert Yes, Don, democracy doesn't come in a one-size-fits all package and we shouldn't be brow beaten into voting for the Dems becuase we don't like the Repubs... Yeah, our system, shopuld it last will have to adapt to consenses and not rule... Rule is like dictatorship... My way r the highway... We have had our fill of that divissive government so I say, until this thing gets worked out, vote Green.... Bobert |
|
22 Apr 06 - 08:52 AM (#1724591) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Wolfgang Well, so I wrongly thought there was a sense in the choice of 'Obit' that I just didn't get. But the opposite also has happened to me more than once: I've thought someone had made a simple mistake in her post and what was it? A joke or allusion I just didn't get. Wolfgang |
|
22 Apr 06 - 09:23 AM (#1724603) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Bobert Well, choice 'er not, I thought I started this as BS... I'm sure I've allready started an "Obit" thread for the Democratics Party as some time or another but maybe not... |
|
22 Apr 06 - 11:10 AM (#1724649) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Donuel The White House shake up goes beyond damage control Even W's chief counsel Harriet Myers has gotten the ax. She will be replaced behind closed doors by Justice Scalia. MacClellan has stepped down as press secretary and will be replaced by Bill O'Reilly or some other Fox talking head - seriously mark my words! Talk about poor spokemanship... Donald Rumsfeld will be replaced by the new improved Don Rumsfeld. The main difference will be limiting his public speaking to twice a year. And of course there is Rove. A Rove by any other name would still smell. Karl is distancing himself before his indictment but is indeed cooking up rehashed the rallying catch phrases such as " a vote for a democrat is a vote for terrorists" "vote for a democrat if you want to ban Christmas" "democrats will set free the jailed terrorists" "Democrats want to undo God's Law!" "Vote Democratic if you want to retreat and surrender in disgrace" |
|
22 Apr 06 - 12:15 PM (#1724696) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Stilly River Sage If you were listening to NPR's Weekend Edition this morning you might have heard a story to prick up your ears toward: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5357110 Sum it up by suggesting that if the current administration can pick apart the Democratic party machine in Illinois they may be able to sideline the special prosecutor who is taking the Bush administration to task. The FBI might take out Fitzgerald before he takes out Rove. SRS |
|
22 Apr 06 - 01:05 PM (#1724741) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Don Firth There was another interview on NPR this morning that is well worth listening to HERE. It's with Joe Klein about his new non-fiction book, Politics Lost : How American Democracy Was Trivialized By People Who Think You're Stupid. It gives you an idea of what the politicians think of YOU. Forewarned is forearmed. Don Firth |
|
22 Apr 06 - 01:16 PM (#1724749) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Ron Davies Well, the Bushites are busy tearing themselves apart on the illegal immigration issue. The Democrats should take a stand on this--in favor of a path to citizenship for illegals. |
|
22 Apr 06 - 01:18 PM (#1724750) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Don Firth On "Wait, Wait . . . Don't Tell Me!" the news quiz program on NPR this morning: "This week they took away one of Karl Rove's two jobs. That's like dealing with a drunk driver by taking away one of his two cars." Don Firth |
|
22 Apr 06 - 11:07 PM (#1725030) Subject: RE: BS: Dems better watch their backs... From: Bert Aw, We've been watching our backs ever since The Shrub weaseled his way into office. |