« The Republicans may not control everything | Main | Democrats win the HOUSE! »

October 24, 2006

Comments

Mike

Some are incumbants and some are running? Vote them out...

Bev

John, do you believe that the most powerful man on the face of the earth is going to give up any power on Nov. 7?

The last six years are like something I've never seen in the 50 years of my life that came before.
Al Gore won the popular vote across the nation, and Florida by only 527 votes when the counting was stopped in a ONE-TIME ONLY Supreme Court case.
Max Cleland was somehow branded soft on terrorism.
A Vietnam War decorated hero was ridiculed by a guy who ditched his service to his country, and a guy who got five deferments for Vietnam because, in his own words, "he had better things to do."
The chairpersons of the state Republican Party determined the outcome of the elections in both Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004).
Gray Davis was recalled by the GOP after Ken Lay, major GWB donor, fucked CA over by manipulating the natural gas industry. Enron got fined a few million.
John Sununu is a sitting Senator today because Ken Mehlman jammed phones so people couldn't get a ride to vote.
The Mission was Accomplished on May 1, 2003. We have the third highest death toll of the war in Oct 2006.

How does that happen?

Our country has not only sat back while GWB has systemically taken away freedoms -- in fact, about 30% of the country has actually handed them right over to him.
And not passively -- they actually applauded and defended him taking those rights away.

We don't even bat an eyelash that, in the United States of America, we now have what are third-world type elections. Some people on this very site are "LOL'ing" about the FACT that we've found out the voting machines can be hacked.

THAT'S where we're at in this country -- the Bush apologists against two-thirds of the nation. But the Bush apologists have the most powerful man in the world determined to garner every ounce of power they will give him. And, so far, they will give him whatever he wants.

Polls are Las Vegas-style betting information. And I DO believe in polls, because I believe in looking at the odds before making a bet.

However, "point shaving" doesn't show up in the polls.
I think it's pretty obvious that Ken Mehlman doesn't plan on losing.
See above on NH phone jamming... three people are in jail, but Ken Mehlman spent a few millions dollars and, lo and behold, John Sununu, bottom line, is a sitting memeber of our US Senate.

Don't ask me how that happens in the United States of America, but please don't forget that that FACT is now just something a we sit back and ACCEPT (some even LOL at) in the United States of America.

BAWDYSCOT

Karl Rove was on NPR yesterday and he was saying he gets to see polls from the individual races(which apparently the media do not) which he says are showing the Reps in better shape than most think. I don't know if he said this to raise the morale of his party's voters of if what he says is correct. All I can say to you Bev is that after 2008 this man cannot be President and this administration will have to leave town. Power succession has always been a peaceful situation in this country and I do not see this happening in this instance.

Bev

bawdy: "Power succession has always been a peaceful situation in this country..."
You've read my "assignment" regarding the history of Marcos' power-grab in the Phillipines, right? :-)
And remember, the Phillipine Constitution was written BASED on our US Constitution.

I predict nothing.
I simply wonder why anyone believes GWB/Karl Rove/Ken Mehlman are going to play fair on Nov. 7.

And I wonder how much we would actually take from the most power-hungry executive branch that I have witnessed in my 57 years on the planet (and still in power, and still actually grabbing MORE power as we speak, not less).
Just some thoughts to consider.

BAWDYSCOT

Now do you see the benefit of deadlock. If the Dems have at least one house Bush will have his wings clipped.

fcc

One of my hobbies is Civil War history. It is really quite interesting to see the parallels in America then and today. The US was absolutely torn apart at the prospect of going to war even under the leadership of Buchanan. Buchanan could not get out of office fast enough and get back to practicing law (He still had his license). Lincoln walked into a mess not of his own making. The man was attacked for his decision to go to war relentlessly but he was a man of long-term thinking. He made many mistakes, but he did stay the course.

The cost in lives was tremendous. He was attacked not only for policy but personally and as expected many death threats came due to his steadfast decision to finish the war. In his day, he was considered by many, North and South, to be a blood thirsty tyrant and the worst president in history. Today, he is revered as one of the greatest presidents in American History. In my opinion the greatest. It would be quite interesting to see how GWB is seen a century from now. I have a feeling much more honorable than the silly personal attacks on his character would indicate. Of course, that would change if he is caught flying more planes into buildings or rigging voting machines:).

csm

Comparing Lincoln and Bush... oh my! What if W were to write his version of the Gettysburg Address...

For Score's and eleventy-seven years ago
Our Father (who aren't in heaven) brought fourth down and long...

fcc

CSM’s comment reminded me of the copperheads in Lincoln’s day. The patriotic Copperheads of the day criticized Mr. Lincoln and wanted him removed from office. Their reasons included, exceeding the restrictions of executive power, violation of the Constitution, his resolve to not compromise on slavery, and of all things he suspeneded habeas corpus. I believe that was Masood's favorite. In addition, he had the audacity to arrest over 18,000 opponents of the war which included officials and newspaper journalist. The parallels are absolutely hilarious. GWB is indeed on his way to greatness it would seem.

As well, he was called a murderer for killing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the war.

BAWDYSCOT

fcc,

You have a right to your opinion and indeed GWB may be headed for greatness(it takes a lot to keep from tittering as I write this), but there is a huge chasm of difference between keeping a country from splitting apart than from invading a country who had not attacked you in the first place and putting this planet on pins and needles because of an impending religious war. If Bush had just kept this in Afghanistan and gotten out once the Taliban had been routed, his place in history might have been different.

csm

Indeed, Bush squandered his opportunity for greatness. Instead of using 9/11 as a bludgeon to invade Iraq he could have used the opportunity to engage the world - yes, the whole damn world - as allies. Instead he alienated most of the whole world. If I try to transport myself back to 9/12 and imagine what the USA might do next I would never, ever have come up with the pile of shit Bush squatted out.

If Bush is ever viewed as great in the future I am thrilled that I will be long dead and won't have to bother with the fools who make that judgement.

fcc

I have no doubt that is exactly what Lincoln opponents stated as well CSM. Was the death of 600,000 soldiers worth the saving of a few slaves? Not to mention, slaves that were not Americans? Most would say yes today, but for those who lost loved ones in that period, I doubt the price was worth it.

I think the Iraqi people are worth saving from Hussein and when the emotion is removed in future decades, I think the consensus of historians will be the same. Bush's actions have been MUCH less bloody than Lincoln's and in the process removed one the eras most opressive dictators. As well, history no doubt will point GWB's mistakes in the process as historians have pointed out Linciln's.

Clinton will likely have the distiction of a Buchanan.

Bob

Ok, I'm probably going to regret doing this, but I'll put out a question to those who see the Iraq conflict as such a great thing. If we were so right to go charging in there, why not Sudan? Korea? One is the site of an ongoing slaughter of people who were trying to protest what their government was doing, and the other is a decidedly wacko dictator who now apparently really DOES have the ability to make WMDs. All this time Bush could have been taking out more evil regimes, and he hasn't. Why?

csm

Lincoln learned from his mistakes - GWB admits of no mistakes. He will NEVER be viewed as great unless this country loses its collective mind (and I guess that could happen given some of the shit that has gone down these past few years). Bush is a cancer on the presidency and is dragging down the USA and its good name.

csm

And just to quell any doubts from folks who view me as a Dem apologist... I was no fan of most of Ronald Reagan's policies. Yet, I understand how people can view him as a "great" president. I do not, but I understand the rationale for it.

Bev

OK, Bob, I'm NOT going to regret saying this:-) --
I believe Iraq wasn't a great thing.

And for anyone who thinks I'm anything but a political independent (who has, I admit, given up on the idea of voting for Independents) --
I find Richard Nixon an interesting example as well.

imo, Richard Nixon was a great President from a policy point of view.
GWB, on the other hand, is a complete idiot from a policy point of view.

Richard Nixon's downfall was the executive power grab at all costs -- the old Machiavellian "MY ends justify MY means" -- and the cherry on top, the attempts to suppress an honest vote in an American election.

So, I guess everyone knows who Nixon's Chief of Staff was.
hmmmmm, maybe there's a pattern emerging here...

fcc

"If we were so right to go charging in there, why not Sudan? Korea?"

We didn't go to Iraq to save the Iraqi people from Hussein. In my own justfication, that is why I have no problem with taking Hussein out. But if you can feed (1) hungry person should do it and if you can free one nation, we should do it. At the time, Hussein was the most evil dictator on earth. Dems and Reps and Clinton are on record as stating as much. Lincoln could not remove slavery from the world, but he obviously though removing it from the South ewas worth 600,000 lives. Using an argument if you do it for one you must do it for all is an argument from laziness.

csm

And your argument, fcc, is revisionist history - and you know it, so I won't rehash it here on the blog yet again.

And Bev, regarding RMN, I don't disagree with you. I've heard it said that Nixon was the last liberal president and that based on his policy positions he couldn't get elected today. His legacy most likely would've been as a "nearly great" president were it not for the paranoia.

BAWDYSCOT

fcc,

So why didn't you answer Bob's question. Why not Sudan? Korea? And for your edification the Civil War was not fought in the beginning because of slavery, it was fought to keep the union together. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address that slavery became an issue.

fcc

Bawdy,

Whats to answer? My statement we can't help everyone no more than we can feed everyone. Is that not obvious?

"it was fought to keep the union together. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address that slavery became an issue."

Bawdy for your edification my friend, that is when it became "Official". Eleven Southern states seceded, all eleven are slave states. They succeeded because the Union under Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery. Did you think they succeeded just to have something to do? Spin it how you like, but secession was declared because of their desire to continue owning slaves and the Union's opposition.

BAWDYSCOT

Very true but this is not the original reason we went to war, it was to keep the union together. Lincoln didn't mention emancipation until the Address.

BAWDYSCOT

It is also very true we did not invade Iraq to free the Iraqis from Sadaam. You are the one who has held this up for our reasoning in the past, no one else.

Mike

Bev, what does Erlichman and Halderman have to do with this? And I agree Nixon was a very capable President...just too ambitious without the backing of his party's conservative Senators..that was the decsive blow.

fcc

"It is also very true we did not invade Iraq to free the Iraqis from Sadaam. You are the one who has held this up for our reasoning in the past, no one else."

Bawdy, I did not attribute this statement to anyone else but me. I do know for a fact I am not the only one however. So the word "our" is your word not mine.


"this is not the original reason we went to war, it was to keep the union together"

Ok Bawdy, then why was the Union splitting? Lets look at it from that perspective. Its the old chicken and egg argument. Slavery is at the very center of the war regardless of how you look at the events.

Just curious Bawdy, in your opinion, was it worth 600,000 lives for slavery or even keeping the Union togther? We talk about splitting Iraq as if it is no big deal. For me personally, I am to far removed from the time to give an honest assessment.

Bev

Mike, I stand corrected.
This is the information I was alluding to:

Early White House appointments
Dick Cheney's political career began in 1969, during the Nixon administration. He held a number of positions in the years that followed: special assistant to the Director of the OEO, White House staff assistant, assistant director of the Cost of Living Council, and Deputy Assistant to the President.
Under President Gerald Ford, Cheney became Assistant to the President and then the youngest White House Chief of Staff in history.
Many have pointed to this time as the point where both he and Donald Rumsfeld began consolidating political power. An article in Rolling Stone said, "Having turned Ford into their instrument, Rumsfeld and Cheney staged a palace coup. They pushed Ford to fire Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, tell Vice President Nelson Rockefeller to look for another job and remove Henry Kissinger from his post as national security adviser.
Rumsfeld was named secretary of defense, and Cheney became chief of staff to the president."

Bob

Interesting, fcc. You admit that we didn't go in to take out Saddam. Thanks for that. But as to my question, you did sort of answer it, and thanks for that too. I wanted peoples' thoughts on it. In your reply you say that at one time Saddam was considered the MOST evil dictator. Ok, since it is necessary to pick and choose who to invade, it might as well be the most evil. But...as you say, that's NOT why we invaded. Interesting.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Syndicate This Site


  • Add to My Yahoo!