Extremism? Far from it. This is populism at its most basic.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Well Saxon, you're prediction is a false one.
quote: NORFOLK, Va. (Jan. 2) - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Friday he believes God has told him President Bush will be re-elected in a "blowout" in November.
"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk," Robertson said on his "700 Club" program on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded. "I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way."
Robertson told viewers he spent several days in prayer at the end of 2003.
"The Lord has just blessed him," Robertson said of Bush. "I mean, he could make terrible mistakes and comes out of it. It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad, God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him."
--AOL News Source--
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad, God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him."
Thank goodness I'm Mormon, not Christian. . .
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Ha, ha. With just a little help from Robertson and his ilk's millions of dollars of campaign contributions and votes, of course. God helps those who help themselves, eh? Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Scott R, you can't do this new tongue in cheek thing or you're going to confuse me. I thought Mormons were Christian? Or are you just making a funny?
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:Why Dean will win in 2004
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Dean will not win. Bush would have to do something incredibly erroneous to lose the election, and while he's done plenty of things people may disagree with or argue about, it's not enough to get him unpopular enough to lose the election. This is not a case of two men competing for the position for the office from the relatively equal status of non-incumbancy. Bush has already had nearly four years, and by the time of the election, he'll have had roughly four years of time in the limelight. Dean, while quite popular as a Democratic frontrunner, was lesser known until the office of President got ready to come up for election.
Bush has three years of recognition ahead of Dean, and has made no tremendous blunders. Yes, he's made debatably bad decisions, none have had such extreme effects to change public opinion enough. In fact, Bush only has to claim that his results in Iraq have proved efficient in catching Hussein, and that the economy is recovering from the effects of 9/11. I find it hard to believe that any contender will find "evidence" sufficient to sway the public from agreeing to that (the level of "truth" to the claims nonwithstanding).
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Storm I'm begging you BEGGING YOU... don't bring that up again. Even I'm afraid to touch that.
And Pat Robertson makes me look like Dick Gephardt
And Dean will shoot himself to pieces with that mouth of his by November. He's already lost the South. And no President in a decade has won without carrying the Glorious South.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Storm I'm begging you BEGGING YOU... don't bring that up again. Even I'm afraid to touch that.
Eh?
Ryan and Argent, perhaps you don't understand. See, Dean is like Agent Smith...and Bush ain't no Neo. Dean's hooked into the matrix and can convert people to Democrats at the drop of a hat. His candidacy has been vitually exponentially growing since day one. Bush's support has been falling over the last four years. He doesn't even break even these days.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I hope that Robertson sticks by this, because I'm pretty sure that Bush is going to lose.
quote:You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deut. 18: 21-22)
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I was referencing the Mormon debate. Christians solved the whole who was a Christian thing with the Nicean Creed. Mormons reject Nicean doctrine and so I say aren't Christians. This upset some people. A lot...a whole lot. So now I fear it more than the who will be ender debate.
Dean lacks the general appeal to be President. And Bush has a very strong approval rating right now. No president has ever lost with an approval rating this high this close to an election.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
An interesting statistic brought up by Dean's campaign. In the latest polls Dean v Bush is only a 5 point loss for Dean. At this same point Clinton v Bush saw a 20 point loss.
Dean has an excellent chance.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Ryan, I don't care whether or not you're really a Christian or not.
As for Bush's popularity, I guarantee that it will be a close race. It will be a replay of 2000 all over again. I would put any amount of imaginary money on it you like.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I know, Storm. I'm confused, too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And no President in a decade has won without carrying the Glorious South."
We have a Glorious South? Where?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There are several of creeds of equal provenance which would exclude non-catholics from being christian; why do you not consider those important?
But you are right, it is a debate to be avoided in this thread.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Tom I will track you down.
Fugu- per se?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not hard to track. My address is on my website.
Seriously, though, a glorious South? Like all the best things in the world aren't north of the Mason-Dixon line. Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Like Canada, Minnesota, and New Jersey?
Woopee!
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
He won't.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What's wrong with NJ? Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What's wrong with MJ?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That's right, Tom.
Nothing good down here. . . nothing at all.
You might as well stay up there in Wisconsin. Don't come down here-- we're scary people. Lots of fleas, and . . . stuff.
You just stay in cozy WI.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Just for clarification, the glorious south is Virginia. Forget all those other states. Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Storm Saxon, your Matrix analogy is ridiculous. Dean is a very charismatic challenger, but he has nowhere near the momentum to win the election right now, and despite the rah-rahs of his campaign managers, shows little sign of making a huge difference. With the fragmented state of the Democratic Party in terms of those campaigning, Dean hasn't even won all Democrats. By the time the primaries are over, it's just as predictable that some Democrats who would vote for a contender against Dean for the ticket are going to vote Bush if their candidate does not win. There is just as much evidence that Dean will not win as there is he will at the moment, and because Bush has the incumbency and a more well-known name, it is more logical and likely that he will win the next election. Barring any incredible mishap, Bush pretty much has it in the bag.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
5 points.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I should say 5 points up from nothing a few months a go.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And you know who else you have to thank for Dean? 'Democrats' like Orson who have removed themselves from the party and don't participate in the primaries or advocate for other Democrats.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
wow. i'm so glad people have taken it upon themselves to determine what i do or do not believe. that's a load off my shoulders!
if i were still a stick's throw from pat's headquarters - well, i suppose i'd throw it. hard.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Except I think that Mr. Card is more likely to vote for Bush than Dean.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What other Democratic candidates are there to vote for?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Except I think that Mr. Card is more likely to vote for Bush than Dean.
There is no way Card will vote for anyone other than Bush, and this is why the Democratic party will only go further left. The other moderate candidates never had a chance because 'democrats' like Orson have never touted them in the court of public opinion and have removed themselves from the Democratic party opinion making process beyond saying 'Democrats suck, Republicans are better!'.
By removing yourself from the pool of potential Democratic voters time after time, by voting Republican time after time, you cease to have any relevance to the Democrats running in the primaries and the only candidates you'll get will be thsoe to the left of you.
What do you call a Democrat who votes Republican? A Republican. Far from helping to bring the Democratic party to the right, Orson has only ensured that the party will swing left since the only people left in the party are 'real' liberals.
Scott-what?
[ January 04, 2004, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
In case you were wondering, while Card has favored Republican presidential candidates lately, he also tends to lean Democratic in local elections. But since very few of you live in North Carolina, you've never had a chance to see this amazing phenomenon in action, but believe me, I've seen it with my own eyes.
What do you call a Democrat who shamelessly votes Republican when his conscience dictates? A moderate.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:What do you call a Democrat who shamelessly votes Republican when his conscience dictates? A moderate.
What do you call a man who thinks his conscience would want him to vote Republican? Confused.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What what?
Are there any other feasible democratic candidates?
I mean, I know who is in the running-- but does anyone think they will actually win the candidacy?
You know what you call a man. . . oh, never mind.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Perhaps I am wrong, Geoff, but I can only go by what he writes in his column. If he votes for some DINO(Democrat in name only) from time to time, I'm pretty sure that my thesis still basically stands. I'm sure Pat Robertson would vote for the right 'Democrat', too, but this Democrat would not reflect what is standard in the party, and,despite what Orson might think, he is a fringe element in the Democratic party and his attitudes and what he writes reflect a typical Republican. Look at Lieberman's primary numbers if you don't believe me. If conservative Democrats were some major force in the party, then Lieberman would be the leader, no?
The way to build things up is to tout them and promote them. He's only mentioned Lieberman once in his column and that in passing. If he wants to change the party, maybe he ought to spend more time building up conservative Democrats than promoting Republicans. Maybe he ought to spend less time tearing down 'liberal' Democrats and the Democratic party in general and spend more time on building up conservative Democrats and focusing on the positive things that Democrats do,and if there aren't any as his column seems to suggest, then as virtually everyone has mentioned, why is he a Democrat?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Personally I think Florida is really north of the Mason-Dixie line and we're all that's needed to win an election. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:he is a fringe element in the Democratic party and his attitudes and what he writes reflect a typical Republican.
THat whole "I think privately-owned property is a mistake and I support forms of socialism"...yup. Big Republican platform, that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
He's never said he supported socialism, you goober.
[ January 04, 2004, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
As I understand it, Jeff, OSC seems to be -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- a man who believes in both totalitarian control of and socialist benefits for society. He'd probably be more at home in the USSR than anywhere else.
[Edited because I'm still not sure how to communicate this idea -- it's on the tip of my fingers, but it's not coming...]
[ January 04, 2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Lalo ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And,Lalo, you be nice. *poke* You know he doesn't believe that.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
It was decided a long time ago that the best form of governent would be a benign dictator. (The Greeks thought so. Not everyone agrees.)
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The Greeks didn't think so, Plato thought so, there is a difference. And remember, Plato's ideas of benign dictatorship came on the heels of watching a democratic state execute his teacher. Small wonder he didn't trust the masses. Protagoras thought that every citizen had a unique and worthwhile share in politics.
Benign dictatorships hold freedom hostage. Here is a quote from another thread.
quote:Arendt also makes a distinction between liberty and freedom which I find terribly intriguing and pertinent. She sets the liberation of a people equal to the throwing off of an over-arching entity, either a government or a foreign oppressor, while freedom is inextricably tied to to a positive power of a citizen to affect public business. One can have liberty in a benevolent monarchy-- though not in a tyranny--, but one can not have freedom. She points to the freedom of assembly in the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," as the most important positive right in regards to freedom.
We may have liberated Iraq's people, but they are not free because they are not in control of their public business, somehow the US has become a dictator, though arguably benevolent, but still an impinger of Iraqi freedom.
This idea of linking freedom to public business is terrifically compelling. Banks increase an enterprenuer's freedom by allowing him/her to take part in the public sphere.(When Arendt speaks about the public sphere she uses the Greek connotations where the distinction was between the public sphere and the household, not our idea of public sector and private sector.) Our ability to enter into commerce, government, or interact at a wide range with whomever we desire and at an incredible level of influence is where our freedom resides.
[ January 04, 2004, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, its just that ensuring a benign dictator is impossible. Hence the problem.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, I think a benign dictatorship works relatively well in a classroom situation.
I have serious doubts about expanding my reign elsewhere, though.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's not even a situation of finding the right person, the mere presence a benign dictator inherently narrows the subjects sense of freedom.
Rivka, it may work with young students without self-esteem or trained sychophants, but eventually a revolution will come when they reclaim their natural freedoms as people and expect to be reasoned with and listened to and accorded with. Hopefully, they won't be in your class, though.
[ January 04, 2004, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
(scoffs) Dean won't win, I'M going to win!
Write-in Abby Lehrke for your 2004 election! Rock the vote!!! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Irami, I don't teach anymore (except on a substitute basis). Life decided that I needed a job with an actual salary.
quote: expect to be reasoned with and listened to and accorded with
I like to think that these were all part of my benevolent dictatorship -- and former students, who no longer have any vested interest in 'kissing up' seem to agree. Interestingly enough, especially the ones I had the most conflict with.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I strongly suspect Bush will win, and it won't be close at all. I don't like this, but here's why:
-- Many people believe that Bush won two wars and brought a despot down. -- Many people believe that Bush is bringing the country back to where it needs to be especially regarding abortions, queers, and those annoying environmentalists. -- Many people respond positively to a person who so obviously includes God in his decisionmaking. -- Many people will remember the tax cuts, and the checks they got. -- Many people will vote for a man with a definite plan in mind, as opposed to a man who's running on the "Bush is wrong" platform. -- Many people do not read the news, do not follow politics, do not look too closely into how bills get passed and who benefits. -- Many people, even those upset with current conditions, do not vote. -- Many people see only Bush's little smile and "everything's going just fine" attitude and dig no deeper. -- Many people admired - still admire - Reagan, and Bush is pushing Reagan's policies through better than Ronnie ever did. -- All of the serious money will be behind Bush, for pretty obvious reasons.
I don't want Bush in office, but for him to lose two things would have to happen.
He would have to screw up big, in a way that couldn't be spun, couldn't be ignored. Right now he's got Saddam, the economy is apparently coming up, and he has plans for the future. The fact that the war in Iraq was ill-planned, badly-timed, suspicious in origin, destructive to our foreign relations, and did little to combat terrorism is a lot tougher to get across than the picture of Saddam being searched for head lice. The fact that rising economy numbers being touted don't really reflect any relief to the bulk of the people out of work and massive deficits are looming in the near future, that's not really something the average American picks up on. The fact that his plans for the future will lead to crushing programs for the poor and disadvantaged, taking off any and all restrictions on corporate behavior, and using the national budget to wrench the country into an oligarchal aristocratic paradise isn't enough.
And his opposition would have to have a strong, easily defined position that was supported by his party. Dean's party is busy backbiting each other into inelectability.
Populist politicians have to have a rousing reason for the populace to rise up, and I don't have that high an opinion of the general populace. I'm not just being cynical, it can easily be borne out by looking at how many people are registered to vote, and how many of those actually show up at the polls.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:See, Dean is like Agent Smith...
So you admit Dean is a nigh-all-powerful Agent of the forces imprisoning all humanity who is now pursuing his own agenda.
I knew you'd come around eventually.
Dagonee
Posted by Mad Ogre (Member # 6071) on :
I'm going to get flamed for this - but here is my take:
Howard Dean’s big idea to fix the Federal Budget is to tax the shit out of us. If you are middle class and invested… you could end up paying double the taxes you are paying now. That’s Howard Dean’s plan.
This plan sounds familiar. “Double the taxes… Triple the taxes! Squeeze every last penny out of those ungrateful, musical peasants!” Reinstating the marriage tax penalty, and instituting a 55% Death Tax. So if you die, more than ½ your stuff goes to the government instead of to your family. As bad as that is, take a look at Dean’s Dividend Tax… Right now it’s 15%, but Howard Dean’s plan is to bump it up to just about 40%. Do you have any idea what that would do to the economy?
Dividends are what you get from your investments. If you are taxed by 40% of what you earn from investments…. Are you going to put your money into investments? No. You are going to put your money into other things… and probably take money out of investments.
What will this do to the stock market? Crash it like a Saudi Arabian on a Boeing 747.
If people stop investing and the stocks of a company go down… what’s that company going to do? Lay people off. That’s what we have seen since 1998. Move jobs to over sea areas…. More unemployment means less people spending money. Less people spending money means even more business cutbacks and failing business. Which means more unemployment… This is the Downward Spiral that caused the whole Grapes of Wrath thing back in the 1930’s, and it all started in the stock market.
And don’t think that rich uncle of yours is going to help when he dies… because the Government will take over half of it outright and then tax the rest as capital gains for another 20%. So instead of 100 bucks, you will get only (off the top of my head) 36 bucks. Nice.
Now, let’s take a look at what George W Bush has done… he made the stock market attractive and some time later the financial reports are showing better numbers than we have seen since the early 90’s. (If we could just get companies to stop sending jobs to India! Freaking NAFTA!) Howard Dean’s ignorant plan will KILL the American Economy. Pure and simple, Howard Dean is poison.
You know what the scary thing is? He is the best the Left has to offer. The best thing the Left has is to take the American Dream and dump a bucket of ice water on it. That’s just freaking GREAT! Check this out… Before Christmas the local football coach paid a visit driving a different vehicle that what he normally drives. He joked that he had to downgrade thanks to Bush. You want to talk downgrading, Coach? If Dean wins, you will be lucky to be driving a Yugo – If you could afford the gas for it!
[ January 05, 2004, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Mad Ogre ]
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I want to start off this page with a simple statement of fact, Dean is going to be drubbed into a non-existent powder in 04. Bush has a huge direct fan base, hasn't screwed up yet, and is a war tiem president form the south. Dean is a loudmouthed extreme democrat, which loses him the moderates. And to top it off, his smile gives me the bejeebies. Dean is going to get wupped.
quote: BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Dean will not win. Bush would have to do something incredibly erroneous to lose the election, and while he's done plenty of things people may disagree with or argue about, it's not enough to get him unpopular enough to lose the election. This is not a case of two men competing for the position for the office from the relatively equal status of non-incumbancy. Bush has already had nearly four years, and by the time of the election, he'll have had roughly four years of time in the limelight. Dean, while quite popular as a Democratic frontrunner, was lesser known until the office of President got ready to come up for election.
Bush has three years of recognition ahead of Dean, and has made no tremendous blunders. Yes, he's made debatably bad decisions, none have had such extreme effects to change public opinion enough. In fact, Bush only has to claim that his results in Iraq have proved efficient in catching Hussein, and that the economy is recovering from the effects of 9/11. I find it hard to believe that any contender will find "evidence" sufficient to sway the public from agreeing to that (the level of "truth" to the claims nonwithstanding).
Well done old chap!
Dean will win the nomination, but he has no chance of the election. See the clinotn familie want Dean to get the nomination because they know he will lose, Hilary doesn't want to face an incumbant democrat for the whitehouse, so they will give Dean up as a sacrificial lamb. Because frankly, he would make a worse president than Sharpton, and thats bad.
[ January 05, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Seriously folks - what moderate is going to look at Bush standing next to Dean in a debate and think Dean is the extremist? It's quite a bit different than Dean vs. Kerry, Lieberman, Clark, and Gephart.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I say Bush-Lieberman 2004. Talk about a wide appeal ticket.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Ryan, that's what I dreamed of in '00.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Tresopax, Bush is quite the moderate, Campaign Finance reform, the new Medicare Bill, and several others are extremely liberal.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The campaign finance reform bill that Bush was using the threat of veto to try stopping (but didn't because of the political fallout)? You're trying to attribute that to Bush?!
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
The only way Bush will lose is if he does something incredibly stupid.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
fugu13 - sure! Bush is an old hand at taking credit for things he opposed. Check out his speeches where he took credit for the Patients Bill of Rights bill in Texas. That's the one he fought and vetoed the first time through, which became law without his signature after it passed again with an overwhelming majority.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, if Clinton could take credit for welfare reform...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So your reasoning is its all right if Clinton did it? Good to know.
Also, Clinton at least declared support for the bill before it passed (and his administration had been consistently waivering states to implement the plan on their own, 30 states were waivered in his first term well before it came up as an election issue). Bush is grabbing credit for bills that passed despite his opposition.
[ January 05, 2004, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No - I just think it's hypocritical to decry it in one politician and not in another. The welfare reform bill was passed by the first Republican Congress in almost 50 years, yet Clinton tried to take credit for it.
The point is Bush signed the law. This is a moderating move for Bush, since the bill was supported by many members of the opposing party.
I'm not sure the person pointing out he was "moderate" because of this viewed the signing of the law as a good thing. I know I didn't. I'm not fond of my personal rights to speak out about an election being curtailed.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Concerning Clinton, and other Democrats who have screwed up royally, I refer you to my earlier posts in these forums. I'm a registered Independent, I criticize everybody in government that fails the public trust, and I'm rarely bored.
Bush did, in fact, sign the Campaign Finance Reform Bill. He did it after arguing against it, and even after signing it he warned that the bill was fatally flawed and need revision. Most telling, he signed it with absolutely no fanfare, just him and Ari. When it's a bill he likes, he's got the entire cast of Chicago in there with him.
As it happens I also have reservations about the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, particularly around the free speech areas in the last month before elections. But that's not what I'm talking about.
A man who argues strenuously against something and then signs it into law still has integrity, he fought his fight and accepted the consequences. But a man who fights strenuously against something and then proudly takes credit for it later is two-faced and untrustworthy.
Bush is in not moderate. He just plays one on TV.
[ January 05, 2004, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, to stick to the point would be to admit that the majority of people in the American public are likely to perceive those actions as moderate, whether you like the way he takes credit for them or not.
Fact: He signed the bill. Fact: Most people view the bill as a moderate bill. Conclusion: Bush will likely be able to sell himself as a moderate.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fact: My first post in this thread was to say that Bush would probably win, due to the public perception of him. I don't like this at all, but I've already predicted it.
But I can damn well try and hold him accountable to his own actions and his own claims. That's the fun part of being a registered and dependable voter.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Bush has signed many laws he opposed. Almost all of them, in fact. Same as every other US President. The veto is not used lightly by the President, which is a good thing.
You can't assert you supported a law when you put large efforts into opposing it until it became politically expedient to allow it into law. Its particularly hypocritical when you were saying you were going to veto it, as Bush was doing with the campaign reform package.
Saying he's moderate because he signed something is like saying "oh, just because he opposed it as much as he felt he could meant he supported it". Its ridiculous.
Also, I've already pointed out why Clinton's and welfare does not parallel Bush and Patient's Rights.
I do agree that he's being pretty successful at positioning himself as a moderate by lying about what he supported (sorry, implying he supported something because it passed while he was in office, despite him being so opposed to it he didn't even sign it!).
Being not against a bill enough to expend the (considerable) political capital involved in a veto is not support. One can oppose a bill, as Bush has done, and still sign it, without ever becoming a supporter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Please point to something where Bush takes credit for the Campaign Finance Bill.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Chris,
My first post on the campaign finance law was aimed at fugu13.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu13,
The Campaign Finance bill perfectly parallels the welfare reform bill - it (welfare reform) was passed as a result of the worst Democratic performance in congressional elections in 50 years. Clinton opposed the bill before that Congress was elected.
He supported it after 30 new Representatives were elected on a platform specifically including that bill. His change of heart came after the election and after the it was clear it was going to pass with veto-proof majorities (mainly because all the Democrats in the House and Senate saw the writing on the wall as well). The fact he didn't wait until the actual vote doesn't make his actions any less disingenuous.
Dagonee
[ January 05, 2004, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I disagree, not surprisingly. Anyways, its good to know that since you condemn so rousingly an action by Clinton that is *at worst* as bad as what Bush did, you will likewise condemn Bush's action.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Chris -
I'm curious. You used the phrase "wrench the country into an oligarchal aristocratic paradise"... how exactly is that different from the present?
Right now, we get a choice between two wealthy, white, privileged, christian men almost exclusively. In lesser elections, we often get a choice between three or four of the same (with some variation).
Still, the aristocracy runs things, since the money runs things. And any country of 285 million that's run by an executive and legislative branch totaling less than 1000 people is pretty close to an oligarchy, no? At least in the strictest sense?
I mean, each senator represents, on average, 2.85 million people... and each representative represents, roughly, 650 thousand people. Seems we're ruled by a pretty small "few"... all of which are essentially part of a financial aristocracy, no?
So, I'm curious. If the current political situation threatens to "wrench the country into an oligarchal aristocratic paradise"... just what is it being wrenched away from?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu, I'm still waiting for someone to point me to a link where Bush took credit for the campaign finance bill. When someone does, then I'll consider if what he did was as bad as what Clinton did with the welfare bill.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
FlyingCow - while I agree that a few hold power over the many, those few can still be held accountable for abuses of the system. At least, they can as long as they can still sue doctors and HMOs for malpractice (something that the administration is trying to weaken), as long as corporate malfeasance can be brought into court (something the administration is trying to weaken), as long as companies must adhere to ethical guidelines and environmental restrictions to keep them honest (which the administration has already weakened by appointing people staunchly opposed to regulation as the heads of the regulatory boards), as long as the government remains representative of all the people (something that the party in power tries to weaken by illegally redistricting to maintain their power, thereby overruling democracy), and as long as everyone is represented by those in power.
I no longer feel that my views are even being considered, much less represented, because I don't have 1.4 million to donate to a politician. While this is hardly a new phenomenon, it has rarely been so flagrant. The party in power now has so much power it swaggers, and it uses that power to cement its own permanence and push through programs I believe are harmful to our country. They don't need to worry about representing all the people, the deck has been stacked so they'll get elected anyway and they can do as they like.
This administration has done more to weaken the checks and balances in the country than any other in our history. Those checks and balances are what kept us honest, or at least reasonable.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
To my knowledge, Bush has not taken credit for the campaign finance bill. Last time he did take credit for Texas' Patient Bill of Rights, which he also fought and vetoed, so I'll be watching his campaign speeches to see if he does it again this time.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Chris> The last I looked, both parties used redistricting to maintain their power wherever they had it--Democrats as often as Republicans. I certainly don't support it, but it doesn't seem to be an exclusively right-wing thing.
I won't ask for data on the middle two--you've probably produced plenty of it on threads when I wasn't around--but I'm curious why you think it's a good thing that people can sue doctors for all they're worth, and that even if they're wrong they end up raising everyone's medical bills so that doctors can keep paying their insurance.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Redistricting is indeed a bipartisan abuse. I'm referring to the recent Republican acts of redistricting outside of the legal schedules for it, at times guaranteed to improve their power base. This isn't just my opinion, the courts are still arguing over the most recent abuses.
And I don't support allowing people to sue their doctors for all they're worth. I support patients keeping the right to sue incompetent doctors for all they're worth. If a doctor makes a mistake and threatens my health I want the ability to seek redress. If that same doctor has made many such mistakes, I don't want him treating patients anymore. If the medical community would do more to cull their own incompetents I'd be in favor of stronger tort reform. You cna even make harsher penalties for frivolous lawsuits if you want, I don't want the courts tied up with money-grubbing con artists either. But every citizen of this country must have the right to seek justice.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Got a link, Chris? I'd like to read about this redistricting thing.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Here's one, at CNN. Or go to google and type in "supreme court redistricting" or "texas redistricting" or "colorado redistricting" to see more sources.
Let me state that if Democrats were doing the same thing, and they've certainly tried to before, I would be just as aggravated.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dean's main problems are that he's been showing himself to be cynical and shallow, and does not seem to have good judgment in the things he chooses to mouth off about. General Wesley Clark would be a far better candidate to run against Bush, but he is too moderate to be nominated by the Democratic party.
Dean's only hope is to pick Clark as his running mate.
I predict that Bush will beat Dean 60% to 40% (discounting votes for splinter candidates), and will still beat Dean even if Dean picks Clark for a running mate, though it would be closer, 55% to 45%. Too bad we don't vote for vice presidents separately.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, the oligarchy is held in check by the potential for litigation? Maybe I'm not understanding. If that is true, then the wealthy are only held in check by those wealthy enough to hire lawyers to sue them. So, the financial aristocracy is only accountable to themselves.
That doesn't do much to make me believe we aren't already living in an oligarchical society where those without money have any true say. Even the fact that we can vote people out of office is limited by the other candidates available. To give a nod to Orwell, sure, you can vote out Napoleon, but if your only other choices for rulership are pigs, what good does it do you?
I can't elect Joe Schmoe upstanding citizen for anything, regardless of how good he may be. I need the backing of the financial aristocracy to run his campaign, and they give their money only if they feel it betters their interests.
Might the problem not be the politicians but the existence of parties at all? Parties exist as fundraising institutions primarily at this point - the idea of a unified platform went the way of the dodo once reliable high speed communication became possible. No longer is it "this is our platform for helping the country, we're all behind it, so vote the party line!"... it's become an Us v. Them mentality, each trying to raise more money than the other and rally more support.
It seems that they're shoring themselves up in respective bunkers to fire at one another, while leaving much othe country in the wasteland between.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I tried "Texas redistricting" and got a bunch of useless links, not much more. Some guy's blog that had a little info. Thanks for the linkage.
There were indications that the Republicans were only trying to redress the balance after the Democrats recently did the same thing, but it was hard to tell from the blog, what with everyone posting random details and opinions.
I wonder what, exactly, constitutes inappropriate districting. It's possible to imagine the party in the majority trying to change a bad district distribution and having it called gerrymandering--say, if much of their support is concentrated in some large cities. I'm just thinking here--I'm not saying this is what's going on.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: There were indications that the Republicans were only trying to redress the balance after the Democrats recently did the same thing,
The redistricting issue is a very interesting one. Mac, you are correct in saying that the republicans were cleaning up a democrat mess. In recent history it has become acceptable to gerrymander the districts to include more people of a certain race or ethnicity. You will a district made of 10 block by 10 block area, then annexed to it is a 1 block by 5 block corridor, in which mostly minority voters live. This is done to give special benefits to democrat voters. This enables them to stack the local and state governments.
Also this decides who is handling the votes on election day, which we see is still important. In Florida there were 4 majorly democrat counties that tried there damnedest to recount Al Gore a victory.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
FC: that's why there are class action suits. Also the Better Business Bureau, the ACLU, workers' unions, and other organizations that help keep companies honest (and yes, all have their problems as well).
Locally there was a congressperson (Dem) who mapped her district to include several miles of a single street so she could connect two large blocs of black voters. I don't like it when anybody does it, and I don't think that the people who benefit from redistricting should be the ones to draw the map. In my "solve your problems for a dollar" thread, which I may have to resurrect if I keep ranting, I suggested forcing equal square districts to be mapped by grid. Politicians would be bound to represent everyone in their district, not just the ones who voted for them.
[ January 06, 2004, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I never asserted that Bush took credit for the campaign finance bill -- I asserted he couldn't be given credit for it.
The Patient's Bill of Rights took a couple minutes to find, but wasn't too hard once I knew where to look:
quote:Actually, Mr. Vice President, it's not true. I do support a national patient's bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the State of Texas to get a patient's bill of rights through. It requires a different kind of leadership style to do it, though. You see, in order to get something done on behalf of the people, you have to put partisanship aside, and that's what we did in my state.
And then he goes on to describe the benefits of said bill. Seems to me he's practically implying he pushed the whole gosh-darned bill through.
Interesting to note his justification when he vetoed them was that they would be too costly to business. In particular note that one of the clauses he most talks about never got his signature despite receiving a veto-proof majority.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
The real point is, Dean stands no humanly chance.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
He stands some humanly chance, but not enough IMO. I'm really tired of the current administration's dangerous and expensive circus. The moment Dean gets the nomination, he needs to start playing like a real candidate. At the very least, he needs to back up his mouth with facts. Everything that he's said to get him in trouble, he's been right about, but he says them in a way that pisses off everyone.
Hopefully he remembers that he once was Governor of Vermont, and all of the behavior that entailed. He was a very decent governor and he did a lot of good things for the state in the 90's.
Most of the hype about Dean rasing taxes is actually undoing Bush's tax cuts. When Bush was campaigning, it was a cool idea because there was this big surplus thingie and lots of people made money off of the internet. Just before he was elected, that world fell apart, and that surplus dissapeared. Now the U.S. is holding two countries and spending lots of money it doesn't have. It would be nice to get back to the mostly-balanced budget we had in the 90's, wouldn't it?
What I really want is for some candidate to come down hard on social security. It'd be a death sentance for them, I know, but the program is gunna implode or something in the next ten years if something isn't done about it. And, to be honest, I'm really tired of paying into a system that I'm never going to get anything out of.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: What I really want is for some candidate to come down hard on social security. It'd be a death sentance for them, I know, but the program is gunna implode or something in the next ten years if something isn't done about it. And, to be honest, I'm really tired of paying into a system that I'm never going to get anything out of.
My question to you is how do you support raising income taxes back up? You aren't getting much from that investment either, why is that okay, but SS isn't?
Dean seems to support creating a pay-as-you-go national healthcare system on-top of all the other entitlement programs we have. Is this something you are willing to fund out of your check every week?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
You know, this might be the first time the Democratic candidate is the small-government choice. Now they're saying the budget deficit for this year alone may be over $500 BILLION! I just keep wondering why fiscal conservatives still stand for it.
It's crazy!
[ January 06, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
What choice does a fiscal conservative have when considering Bush or Dean? As I mentioned above, Dean has plans to massively increase the federal govt.'s role in everyone's lives. There are no small government candidates. Bush rammed through the Rx drug bill which is an affront to the "General Welfare" clause. We are not safe from socialism in this country, it comes from all sides.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A fiscal conservative doesn't necessarily oppose government expenditure, he opposes government waste, and government debt (beyond that which is healthy).
Its perfectly in line with fiscal conservatism to raise taxes in face of a massive deficit.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I thought Mormons were Christian? Or are you just making a funny?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The last I looked, both parties used redistricting to maintain their power wherever they had it--Democrats as often as Republicans. I certainly don't support it, but it doesn't seem to be an exclusively right-wing thing.