From: Michael Busick
Subject: RE: Obama: Iraq & Health Care
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:55:33 -0800
If I was voting on either side, my preferences would go like this:
Dems
Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, Biden, etc.
GOP
McCain, any of those other guys who have no shot when compared to the rest of this side of the field, Huckabee (despite his evangelical background, he seems more genuine than the remainder of this group), Romney (just seems too slimy and disingenuous -- it's like having Pat Riley or Alex Rodriguez as President), Giuliani (how can he run on a platform of nothing but "I was mayor of NYC on 9/11 -- even though I didn't buy decent radios for the firefighters when I had the chance -- and the city didn't burn itself to the ground so I think I'm the right guy to run the most powerful nation on the planet"?
President Hillary just means the Dem Washington insiders and lobbyists are free to return to K Street. Obama, Kucinich and Edwards would be completely different and probably better alternatives if people really want change in Washington. I'm fairly sure they would hire people that would be good fits for the Cabinet positions.
> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:47:54 -0800
> From: Young H. Kim
> Subject: Re: Obama: Iraq & Health Care
>
> I have been to Obama's site long before this exchange, but appreciate the link
> anyway. Here's one I found that has links to all the candidates' websites:
> http://www.presidentialelection.com/candidates/index.htm
>
> I was thinking on the bus ride to work today (if anything, our discussion is
> clarifying my positions and whom I should support) and realized that I will go for
> Obama at the caucus here--mainly for one reason. I don't like to sum up my choice
> by a litmus test, but he did not vote for the war on Iraq. I know the Clinton camp
> is saying, "He voted against the war but voted for its funding". Well, he's
> sensible enough to know that he lost the vote, but he's not gonna leave the troops
> hanging with no money for resources. It would be nonsensical, if not just stupid,
> to keep voting against funding when the war is on. Whether his votes reflect
> pre-calculation on his part for political gain or not, I give him credit for voting
> against the war and having the sense not to vote against funding it, even if it was
> for fear of political fallout. To reiterate, I credit him for making the right
> decision in the first place, and having the sense and wisdom to give the support
> that the military needs. I would trust him to get us out without jeopardizing our
> troops and maintaining some semblance of peace in Iraq.
>
> On health care, none of the Rep candidates' proposals require health coverage for
> all Americans. So where should the compromise be between universal health care and
> not. That seems impossible to reconcile. If Reps support covering some but not
> all, where is the reform? Just cover more than we do now, is that the compromise?
> Reps may be able to argue that they are for change, but not true reform. If Reps
> consider universal health care to be "left-leaning" than how can a compromise happen
> other than getting the Dems and a super majority of the country to give up on
> mandatory coverage for all? That is not for the good of the nation.
>
> I agree with shifting some of the insurance burden from small business employers,
> but not all employers. Health education and prevention is important as well, so
> that people are empowered to improve their health and to lower costs. I believe
> that the independent voters favor a universal, mandatory system; of course, the
> Right sees this as far Left, but the Right is not in tune with the mainstream on
> this issue. The Right is more concerned with preserving the current, unfair system
> that favors the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, health care corporations
> that run hospitals and clinics, people in the lucrative sectors of the health care
> profession and major corporations--the people who don't need or want universal
> health care. Always frustrating that the Dems are unable to drive this point home.
>
>
> --- Brian Menard wrote:
>
> > YHK: Go to www.barackobama.com<http://www.barackobama.com/> for details. Prior
> > to laying out his actual positions on issues, he spoke about coming together as
> > one nation, moving past party, addressing our nations problems together instead of
> > tanking each others efforts and ending up with squat. I liked all that. I think
> > his first book (the one he actually wrote, instead of the second one ghost-written
> > for a la "Profiles in Courage") was a great book about an amazing individual. I
> > have great respect for him, and think we could do far worse than have a sincere,
> > smart, compassionate, thinking person in the White House. But his policy
> > proposals are rehashes of old left-leaning ideas, not new ideas welcoming
> > participation by all. He knows full well that Republicans won't touch his health
> > plan, his plans for withdrawal from Iraq, etc. So the message of rhetoric
> > combined with proposals comes across to folks like me - who were interested in the
> > prospect of working across party lines with him - as "Let's move beyond partisan
> > fights and work together to solve our problems: Republicans, if you get a running
> > start you can jump waaaaaaay across over here and join us in our effort without
> > our yielding any ground at all." That pig don't fly.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Young H. Kim
> > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:15 PM
> > Subject: Obama
> >
> > BRM, could you give us some specifics on why/how you concluded that Obama is not
> > close to your views?
> >
> > I wonder if Obama can capture sort of a JFK-esque sea change and actually make
> > it
> > all the way. I do believe that his weakness is lack of experience as an
> > executive
> > and in Washington politics. Hillary may trump him on this. He needs to drive
> > home
> > why he is the one who's ready go as president on Day One. I don't think he's
> > communicated his expertise and knowledge on foreign affairs very convincingly.
> > I
> > think the first critical decisions a president makes are who he chooses to be in
> > his
> > cabinet, but we're too early for that. The lack of experience for any new
> > president
> > can be mitigated by the experts with whom he surrounds himself.
> >
> > I do like his theme of "One America" as opposed to Red or Blue states. Am I
> > correct
> > to recall that he said in some speech that we are "purple" states? That may
> > have
> > been another pundit's comment that I'm recalling.
> >
> > I don't see him as a radically Left Democrat, so I wonder if he'd able to make
> > the
> > drastic reforms such as universal health care and immigration come to fruition.
> > I
> > haven't yet assessed his other domestic and economic positions.
> >
> > --- Brian Menard wrote:
> >
> > > Brian A:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the great explication of your stands. There's actually much with
> > which
> > > I can agree there, even if we might squabble a bit over some of the details.
> > > Indeed, what's broken is not at all easy to fix, and both sides share
> > culpability
> > > for their various contributions. Just curious, as an economic populist, does
> > > Huckabee resonate with you, or does the religion thing override potential
> > economic
> > > affinity. FDT stickers remain on my vehicles, but given his performance to
> > date
> > > I've had to give much time to thinking of backup options. Huckabee had been
> > my
> > > #2, but I recently had an epiphany about how I assessed the field. (And his
> > > alleged us-vs-them comments last week about it being the evangelicals' turn to
> > run
> > > the GOP, if true, will place him further down on my list.) Sixteen months ago
> > I
> > > started a four-month investigation into Obama to see if he might be the right
> > guy
> > > to bring the nation together. As described in previous comments, I decided,
> > once
> > > he started filling in details behind his rhetoric, that he is not the guy.
> > But in
> > > assessing GOP options, I analyzed candidates with a different screen of
> > > priorities, namely, who is closest to what I want. Lately - in part due to
> > our
> > > exchange here, so thanks guys - I appreciate acutely the need to apply the
> > same
> > > test to candidates of both sides to find someone willing to do more than speak
> > > about working together despite having strong views on both (or all) sides;
> > and, if
> > > it was important for me to find a Democratic candidate willing to work with
> > the
> > > other side instead of convert the other side, so it should be with my GOP
> > search.
> > > In 2000, I voted for John McCain in the Virginia primary. In the years since,
> > I
> > > have called him an "opportunist" and other unkind things, swearing I would
> > never
> > > support him in another nomination battle. But looking at the entire field, he
> > > more than anyone seems to me to have a record of really being willing to work
> > with
> > > both sides to do things that need to be done. I'm not yet ready to say I'm
> > > backing him, but going that next step is a whole lot closer than the distance
> > he's
> > > traveled in my esteem in the last few weeks. Perhaps, though, only a third
> > party
> > > will be able to do this (which means that it probably won't get done).
> > >
> > > As for defeat, I do think we are susceptible to invasion, though not by a
> > > uniform-wearing army. (BTW, I think you are the only participant here who has
> > > served in uniform, which I hadn't forgotten - I don't think I've made any
> > comments
> > > that might seem to have overlooked your service, but if I left any such
> > > impression, my apologies...You deserve nothing but credit for your service.)
> > But
> > > that invasion can only come from our sleeping at the guard post. I don't mean
> > we
> > > need to go Tancredo and close the borders while inserting tracking chips into
> > > everyone to follow them around. We are a nation of immigrants of all colors,
> > > shapes, and sizes, and we value freedom - going back to that shocking
> > statement
> > > from our hypocritical Founders' (or, if you want to take it back further, from
> > > Aristotle) that we obtain our rights not from government but by virtue of our
> > > existence. But, given that there are folks who would be quite pleased to stop
> > our
> > > breathing because we breathe (and Ron Paul's idea that if we just offer to
> > trade
> > > with them all will be well...when much of what we have to offer in trade is
> > what
> > > makes them want to eradicate us), prudent caution is in order. We just have
> > to
> > > figure out what "prudent caution" means for us collectively. Meanwhile, your
> > > point about decay from within is quite on target. And I think we're in
> > agreement
> > > (correct me if I'm wrong) that nobody in the arena is addressing the longer
> > term
> > > economic dangers sufficiently. It's not by chance that my kids (ages 7 and 9)
> > and
> > > I go to Mandarin Chinese class on Saturday mornings. Whether to be better
> > > equipped for saving our country or surviving it, we need to know China and
> > > understand our relationship with it in this new century, and we cannot sell
> > our
> > > existence to China in order to defend against terrorist threats. Your USSR
> > > anecdote is scarily apt.
> > >
> > > Finally, I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on ignorance. I've got no
> > beef
> > > with real conversation. Thus DoasIsayandnotasIdo Jefferson's quip about no
> > idea
> > > being too dangerous to discuss so long as reason is left free to combat it.
> > > Having grown up as a Republican in intolerant Seattle, where you can be
> > anything
> > > you want to be as long as you think correctly, I appreciate your tone. Thanks
> > for
> > > good dialogue!
> > >
> > > - Brian M.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Panel Profile - Intolerant Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:00:19 -0800 (PST)
From: "Young H. Kim"
Subject: Re: Panel Profile
Yikes, Brian M., I guess you are still sore; I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek. Of course, it was never my intent to paint you as a reactionary. I don't know how you could read it that way. I put myself on the left as you are on the right.
But I must ask, when's the last time you supported a Democrat or some non-conservative proposal? Were and are you not a Rep supporter all of your life? I specifically said, "I don't expect you to be a Dubya apologist," but you do have more respect for Nixon than someone on the left. You are the conservative Republican in our panel. Am I wrong in that? Did I offend you in some way by saying this? I do apologize if that's the case. Do you consider yourself an independent conservative? A moderate?
And what of this venom against Seattle? I don't get your assessment of "intolerance" here (I am planning on a separate thread on "tolerance"). Seattle has got to be one of the most open cities in the nation, socially, culturally and politically. I did not realize your time in Seattle, politically-speaking, was so horrible. Is Seattle so politically oppressive? I'd argue that it's not much better or worse than any other major city in the US. Urbanites tend to be more liberal.
You haven't even been living here for most of the last 20 years. In that time, Seattle has had a steady influx of transplants from other states and foreign nationals. Dare I say I think you've become overly sensitized to any opinion left of center. Believe me, there are plenty of conservatives, Republicans and right-wing extremists in greater Seattle. I trust you heard about the gubernatorial race here in 2004, which may well repeat itself this year. Mike works for the King County Elections, and he could tell you some stories about the right-of-center folks here.
Certainly we are influenced by our surroundings, but I think your prejudice and bias against Seattle has clouded your objectivity. No doubt Seattle as a whole is decidedly liberal and on the left, but "intolerant"? Seattle is absolutely more tolerant than the right-wing areas in the South, the Midwest and some parts of the East.
----------------------
From: "Brian Menard" <brian_menard@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Panel Profile
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:48:29 -0500
Young: While I'm sure it's not your intent, you set me out as a reactionary token. I'm the only one you addressed oppositionally in your bios of us. Is it impossible for you to describe me without impugning my end of the spectrum, presuming that I should NOT be sore about years of abuse from the thought-majority around me, or that I can only support our president as an apologist for him? C'mon, friend, break free of your narrow Seattle parameters ("Seriously?" You bet!) and give it another objective try. I'm happy to help, but I'm curious to see what you can come up with after knowing me so well for the better part of three decades! BTW, after a decade of broad searching from 8th grade through mid-20's, I landed back in the Catholic church, though still with my LIBERAL views on Church doctrine. (Egads!)
----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:54 PM
Subject: Panel Profile
Taking some lunch break time to start those email threads I mentioned. Let's start with our panel members' (very brief) profiles. This is to elaborate my point that we collectively cover the nation's political spectrum. I'm not trying to label you guys, just giving some background of where we come from, so please feel free to correct/admonish me if my comments are out-of-line in any way. From the Left to Right:
Mike Busick: I've known Mike since my post-Columbia days. Mike has been an independent Democratic supporter and mostly on the Left of the political spectrum. In terms of moral or religious views, he's a relativist and an agnostic. He's a regular reader of truthout.org, mediachannel and the Progressive Review and helps to keep me informed as well. You already know he likes Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher and the Simpsons.
Young Ho Kim: I have been a Dem supporter as well, but having known BRM since 8th grade, I had been tempted to support Reagan on occasion. ;-) I am a born-again Christian and attend a Korean-speaking Southern Baptist church (we have a few English-only members as well), where politically-speaking, Michelle and I are in a very small minority, and proud of it. I have my own Leftist views which I consider quite radical. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to share them later on.
Brian Adamson: Brian, whom I've known since 4th grade, has always had a broad world view and long before he had enlisted as an Army infantryman. He served a tour in Korea at the DMZ where he accepted Christ. Brian is left of center but I would consider him a moderate/independent. You've already read of his love of globetrekking. :-)
Brian Menard: Raised Republican in Delaware and remains a Rep supporter, all the while surviving "Intolerant Seattle". (come on, BRM, seriously? :) Are ya still sore about kids slamming you for being a Nixon apologist in 8th grade? ;-) Anyway, I certainly don't expect you to be a Dubya apologist, but I know that you will always maintain and defend your conservative ideals. Kudos to you and yours for learning Mandarin (I need to get off my butt and learn Spanish). Brian is a Christian also (Episcopalian or Catholic?).
Feel free to reply/add/embellish/bash...Don't expect this thread to keep going. ;-)
--- "Young H. Kim" <yhkpenguin@yahoo.com> wrote:
I had a five paragraph response to BRM's comments that started with the "clearing of phlegm from our political systems", but apparently I forgot to send it and it got lost. I, too, am getting sucked into our fascinating discussion and am quite glad that I nudged you guys.
Looks like the three of you covered most of what I had said in the lost response. And unintentionally, the four of us appear to represent a microcosm of the current electorate spectrum. None of us are mere or pure Dem or Rep, but given our two-party system, each of us has to pick a side most likely to win the authority to lead in the way we would support. Unfortunately, true leadership and statesmanship have been put aside for a long time.
One point I wanted to emphasize in my "lost in cyberspace" email is that while I am all for seeking commonality and change in tone, I also want to urge each of us to speak freely and respectfully. We need to be able to discuss our differences and to challenge each other's opinions and preconceptions. BRM, you already mentioned about having a "real conversation". MLB, I hope this hasn't worn out your patience to stay in our continued discourse. BGA, thanks for choosing not to wait to respond and the phone conversation we had on Saturday re: the presidential field.
I admitted to BGA that I would actually consider voting for McCain, if things turned unexpectedly bleak for the Dems. However, it's interesting that BRM had considered McCain to be an opportunist. I still do see him in that light, only because he's learned that that's the only way he can win the Rep nomination. I believe McCain at heart to be more of a moderate and a person who can reach out to both parties, as BRM feels, much like LBJ could do as a former senator with experience and clout.
There's so much more to say, and I'm glad that MLB replied back about "both sides playing the fear card" comment. Really, BRM? And does Iran really "having it coming", BGA? That surprised me a bit. So I need to reply to these comments or I'll lose sleep. ;-)
Our discussion is turning into an internet forum, screaming for a separate thread for each of these issues and topics, so I'm going to try to organize them a bit, as the self-appointed moderator/rabblerouser. But, as always, feel free to say what comes to you. I'm loving this, big time!
Thank you, my dear friends. Just to be a bit more sappy, you are the men I wanted to stand by me at my wedding, and what a select group you are!
Young
From: "Young H. Kim"
Subject: Re: Panel Profile
Yikes, Brian M., I guess you are still sore; I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek. Of course, it was never my intent to paint you as a reactionary. I don't know how you could read it that way. I put myself on the left as you are on the right.
But I must ask, when's the last time you supported a Democrat or some non-conservative proposal? Were and are you not a Rep supporter all of your life? I specifically said, "I don't expect you to be a Dubya apologist," but you do have more respect for Nixon than someone on the left. You are the conservative Republican in our panel. Am I wrong in that? Did I offend you in some way by saying this? I do apologize if that's the case. Do you consider yourself an independent conservative? A moderate?
And what of this venom against Seattle? I don't get your assessment of "intolerance" here (I am planning on a separate thread on "tolerance"). Seattle has got to be one of the most open cities in the nation, socially, culturally and politically. I did not realize your time in Seattle, politically-speaking, was so horrible. Is Seattle so politically oppressive? I'd argue that it's not much better or worse than any other major city in the US. Urbanites tend to be more liberal.
You haven't even been living here for most of the last 20 years. In that time, Seattle has had a steady influx of transplants from other states and foreign nationals. Dare I say I think you've become overly sensitized to any opinion left of center. Believe me, there are plenty of conservatives, Republicans and right-wing extremists in greater Seattle. I trust you heard about the gubernatorial race here in 2004, which may well repeat itself this year. Mike works for the King County Elections, and he could tell you some stories about the right-of-center folks here.
Certainly we are influenced by our surroundings, but I think your prejudice and bias against Seattle has clouded your objectivity. No doubt Seattle as a whole is decidedly liberal and on the left, but "intolerant"? Seattle is absolutely more tolerant than the right-wing areas in the South, the Midwest and some parts of the East.
----------------------
From: "Brian Menard" <brian_menard@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Panel Profile
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:48:29 -0500
Young: While I'm sure it's not your intent, you set me out as a reactionary token. I'm the only one you addressed oppositionally in your bios of us. Is it impossible for you to describe me without impugning my end of the spectrum, presuming that I should NOT be sore about years of abuse from the thought-majority around me, or that I can only support our president as an apologist for him? C'mon, friend, break free of your narrow Seattle parameters ("Seriously?" You bet!) and give it another objective try. I'm happy to help, but I'm curious to see what you can come up with after knowing me so well for the better part of three decades! BTW, after a decade of broad searching from 8th grade through mid-20's, I landed back in the Catholic church, though still with my LIBERAL views on Church doctrine. (Egads!)
----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:54 PM
Subject: Panel Profile
Taking some lunch break time to start those email threads I mentioned. Let's start with our panel members' (very brief) profiles. This is to elaborate my point that we collectively cover the nation's political spectrum. I'm not trying to label you guys, just giving some background of where we come from, so please feel free to correct/admonish me if my comments are out-of-line in any way. From the Left to Right:
Mike Busick: I've known Mike since my post-Columbia days. Mike has been an independent Democratic supporter and mostly on the Left of the political spectrum. In terms of moral or religious views, he's a relativist and an agnostic. He's a regular reader of truthout.org, mediachannel and the Progressive Review and helps to keep me informed as well. You already know he likes Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher and the Simpsons.
Young Ho Kim: I have been a Dem supporter as well, but having known BRM since 8th grade, I had been tempted to support Reagan on occasion. ;-) I am a born-again Christian and attend a Korean-speaking Southern Baptist church (we have a few English-only members as well), where politically-speaking, Michelle and I are in a very small minority, and proud of it. I have my own Leftist views which I consider quite radical. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to share them later on.
Brian Adamson: Brian, whom I've known since 4th grade, has always had a broad world view and long before he had enlisted as an Army infantryman. He served a tour in Korea at the DMZ where he accepted Christ. Brian is left of center but I would consider him a moderate/independent. You've already read of his love of globetrekking. :-)
Brian Menard: Raised Republican in Delaware and remains a Rep supporter, all the while surviving "Intolerant Seattle". (come on, BRM, seriously? :) Are ya still sore about kids slamming you for being a Nixon apologist in 8th grade? ;-) Anyway, I certainly don't expect you to be a Dubya apologist, but I know that you will always maintain and defend your conservative ideals. Kudos to you and yours for learning Mandarin (I need to get off my butt and learn Spanish). Brian is a Christian also (Episcopalian or Catholic?).
Feel free to reply/add/embellish/bash...Don't expect this thread to keep going. ;-)
--- "Young H. Kim" <yhkpenguin@yahoo.com> wrote:
I had a five paragraph response to BRM's comments that started with the "clearing of phlegm from our political systems", but apparently I forgot to send it and it got lost. I, too, am getting sucked into our fascinating discussion and am quite glad that I nudged you guys.
Looks like the three of you covered most of what I had said in the lost response. And unintentionally, the four of us appear to represent a microcosm of the current electorate spectrum. None of us are mere or pure Dem or Rep, but given our two-party system, each of us has to pick a side most likely to win the authority to lead in the way we would support. Unfortunately, true leadership and statesmanship have been put aside for a long time.
One point I wanted to emphasize in my "lost in cyberspace" email is that while I am all for seeking commonality and change in tone, I also want to urge each of us to speak freely and respectfully. We need to be able to discuss our differences and to challenge each other's opinions and preconceptions. BRM, you already mentioned about having a "real conversation". MLB, I hope this hasn't worn out your patience to stay in our continued discourse. BGA, thanks for choosing not to wait to respond and the phone conversation we had on Saturday re: the presidential field.
I admitted to BGA that I would actually consider voting for McCain, if things turned unexpectedly bleak for the Dems. However, it's interesting that BRM had considered McCain to be an opportunist. I still do see him in that light, only because he's learned that that's the only way he can win the Rep nomination. I believe McCain at heart to be more of a moderate and a person who can reach out to both parties, as BRM feels, much like LBJ could do as a former senator with experience and clout.
There's so much more to say, and I'm glad that MLB replied back about "both sides playing the fear card" comment. Really, BRM? And does Iran really "having it coming", BGA? That surprised me a bit. So I need to reply to these comments or I'll lose sleep. ;-)
Our discussion is turning into an internet forum, screaming for a separate thread for each of these issues and topics, so I'm going to try to organize them a bit, as the self-appointed moderator/rabblerouser. But, as always, feel free to say what comes to you. I'm loving this, big time!
Thank you, my dear friends. Just to be a bit more sappy, you are the men I wanted to stand by me at my wedding, and what a select group you are!
Young
McCain
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:17:14 -0800 (PST)
From: "Young H. Kim" <yhkpenguin@yahoo.com>
Subject: McCain
Already conveyed my thoughts on McCain but to elaborate...
Having been burned by the Dubya camp during the 2000 campaign, McCain definitely learned the lesson that he needs to court the GOP base. Hence, his statements on further supporting the Iraq War (this still troubles me about him), Bush tax cuts and immigration. Read today that McCain is at the same time winning votes from Dem and independent voters. Reps had better get in tune to the fact that McCain is somehow managing to have broad appeal while being a proponent of current Bush policies. An illusionist's sleight of hand, I don't understand how he's garnering such support with his message. But this also makes him look like an opportunist.
That may be, but the man survived the Hanoi Hilton, enduring all sorts of inhumanity and still maintaining his humanity. If I were his campaign manager, I'd be hammering this point to his advantage, every friggin' day. Do I see him as a man who would rashly lead the nation to war? No. Who better than a veteran knows the pain and atrocities of war on soldiers and civilians? With deference to people who want "an agent of change", McCain has the experience and connections to reach out to the Dems to actually affect change. I believe Hillary has the upper hand on this point over Obama also. More on Hillary/Obama later...
As I mentioned, McCain could be an LBJ-type who can engineer, maneuver and lead thorny legislation through Congress. We as a nation need a leader who can unbreak the gridlock. McCain would be a man who puts the good of the nation first, channeling from his heart and experience. Of course, this is the absolutely best case for McCain that I could possibly conjure up. Maybe I should work for his campaign...
From: "Young H. Kim" <yhkpenguin@yahoo.com>
Subject: McCain
Already conveyed my thoughts on McCain but to elaborate...
Having been burned by the Dubya camp during the 2000 campaign, McCain definitely learned the lesson that he needs to court the GOP base. Hence, his statements on further supporting the Iraq War (this still troubles me about him), Bush tax cuts and immigration. Read today that McCain is at the same time winning votes from Dem and independent voters. Reps had better get in tune to the fact that McCain is somehow managing to have broad appeal while being a proponent of current Bush policies. An illusionist's sleight of hand, I don't understand how he's garnering such support with his message. But this also makes him look like an opportunist.
That may be, but the man survived the Hanoi Hilton, enduring all sorts of inhumanity and still maintaining his humanity. If I were his campaign manager, I'd be hammering this point to his advantage, every friggin' day. Do I see him as a man who would rashly lead the nation to war? No. Who better than a veteran knows the pain and atrocities of war on soldiers and civilians? With deference to people who want "an agent of change", McCain has the experience and connections to reach out to the Dems to actually affect change. I believe Hillary has the upper hand on this point over Obama also. More on Hillary/Obama later...
As I mentioned, McCain could be an LBJ-type who can engineer, maneuver and lead thorny legislation through Congress. We as a nation need a leader who can unbreak the gridlock. McCain would be a man who puts the good of the nation first, channeling from his heart and experience. Of course, this is the absolutely best case for McCain that I could possibly conjure up. Maybe I should work for his campaign...
The Fear Card
From: Michael Busick
Subject: RE: The Fear Card
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:44:52 -0800
OK, but have you ever heard of someone beyond relieved their guy won?
I'm still thinking about moving to Canada someday because of the way our government is going about its current business, but that just means I'm quitting and the narrow-minded folks win. :)
From: Brian Menard
Subject: Re: The Fear Card
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:51:17 -0500
A fair point, but in principal no different than the Dems and others who said they would go to Canada if Bush were reelected (and then didn't when he was), or folks who said their feared for their safety because he continues to reside in the White House.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: RE: The Fear Card
On KIRO radio on the evening of Bush's second inauguration, I heard the voice of someone who was at the event and she said and I quote, "I'm beyond relieved that Bush is still president."
If that wasn't the voice of someone who was played by the GOP's Fear Card, I don't know what else it could've been.
I've voted for presidential losers before -- and winners -- and I hope I live long enough to vote for winners and losers again, but if I ever feel "beyond relieved" that my guy (or gal) won, I hope I know at least one person who will be around to remind me how wrong it is to feel that way about a presidential candidate or president.
Happy (because they won) or sad (because they lost), sure, but "beyond relieved"? How scared was she about Kerry and why? Was it at least in part because of what Cheney said about us getting hit again if Kerry's elected?
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:07:52 -0800
> From: Young H. Kim
> Subject: The Fear Card
>
> I would like a bit more discussion on this topic as well. How is the fear card
> played by the Dems? Are we talking about class warfare and "fleece the rich"
> rhetoric from the Left? If so, are the wealthy and privileged conservatives living
> in fear of the Left and Big Government destroying their lives and livelihood?
> Perhaps so given the trend in gated communities and private security guards. Help
> us to understand.
>
> --- Michael Busick wrote:
>
> >
> > How have the Dems played the post-9/11 fear card like the GOP has? Each side has
> > long said that this country would be safer with their version of government as
> > opposed to the other one, but since 9/11, the Dems haven't put together a Patriot
> > Act or curbed civil rights or invaded the privacy of national and local protest
> > groups.
> >
> > And you're right about the Founding Fathers with regard to their hypocrisy about
> > slave-owning. :)
> >
> > However, it seems like most of America (and a lot of innocent people around the
> > world) are finding themselves caught between the evangelical and neo-con fanatics
> > and the Islamic fanatics. Too bad there isn't some desolate island where these
> > fanatics can be sent to fight it out until they're all gone.
> >
> >
> > From: Brian Menard
> >Subject: Re: A rising or setting sun?
> >Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:21:28 -0500
> >
> > All that may be well and good to profess, just as folks on the other side profess
> > their arguments against their "dangerous" opponents (since BOTH sides play their
> > own versions of the fear card so successfully and well without hesitation), but
> > the bottom line remains that while one pseudo-army of Americans shares lefty views
> > and is willing to do battle in the political equivalent of MAD against the
> > righties, there is also a pseudo-army of Americans who have opposing righty views
> > and are willing to do battle in the political equivalent of MAD against the
> > lefties. At some point we've either got to be sincere in moving past the anger
> > and stubborn resolve to find a way to work together constructively, or we have to
> > try to figure out how to eliminate each other while remaining standing ourselves.
> > If 12 million illegal aliens would be difficult to identify, locate, and send out
> > of the country (and, indeed, it would!), just imagine how difficult it would be
> > for the left side of the political spectrum to get rid of the right side or vice
> > versa! Given Brian A's comments about the world's view of America, it appears no
> > place would be willing to take either side. That rather minimizes options; and,
> > since I'm not a fan of genocide, my preference is to figure out how to live
> > together, however imperfect the relationship. Going back again to our founding
> > era - and Franklin, in particular, who played a key levelheaded role in
> > negotiating compromise, there was a keen awareness during the Second Continental
> > Congress of the fundamental differences between slaveholding South and nonslave
> > North. Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence (hypocrisy factor
> > aside) was gutted of anti-slavery language by Edward Rutledge and his southern
> > block, and John Adams - no weakwilled pushover in anyone's estimation - gritted
> > his teeth and accepted imperfect progress together with his opponents over
> > self-destruction from mutual inflexibility. This is not at all to belittle the
> > deeply felt positions we all hold. I can run through my litany of media baggage,
> > Clinton baggage, resentment in response to election result resentments, etc. But
> > at the end of the day, merely spouting our respective deeply held beliefs won't
> > get us anywhere productive; it only reinforces why "we" think "they" are horrid
> > urchins that need to be crushed and consumed by a great Cosmic Otter. (Sorry, the
> > seascape my daughter showed me earlier - complete with an urchin on the sea floor
> > for an otter to eat - is still on my brain.) If we can't be tolerant enough of
> > each other's views to stave off the presumption that internal opponents are no
> > better - and perhaps worse - than external enemies, then Adamson is right about
> > the setting sun but for reasons far different that what he states. "United we
> > stand // Divided we fall // And if our backs should ever be against the wall //
> > We'll be together, together you and I" - I think it was 1970.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Busick
> > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:44 AM
> > Subject: RE: A rising or setting sun?
> > In the late 60s -- or early 70s -- a musical group called "Brotherhood Of Man"
> > had a hit with a song called "United We Stand". The chorus started with
> > (predictably) "United We Stand/Divided We Fall...". As long as one side plays the
> > fear card -- and is successful with it -- this country will never reach the
> > potential that our Founding Fathers hoped we would reach. We shouldn't have to
> > give up all of our basic, civil, American rights in order to be sufficiently safe.
> > When this country becomes a safe police state, the terrorists win. "He who
> > sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." Benjamin Franklin said that --
> > and he was never president. When we spend more time pointing out each other's
> > differences than each other's similarities, the terrorists win. When we start
> > deciding which parts of the Constitution, Bill Of Rights and Declaration Of
> > Independence work and which ones don't, the terrorists win. It's common knowledge
> > that the bad guys don't like our freedom. Why, then, are we continuing to let it
> > be taken away from us to try to fight those bad guys? Each of us is part red and
> > part blue. The right candidate to properly lead this country in 2008 -- and beyond
> > -- will remind us of that and that candidate should win.
Subject: RE: The Fear Card
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:44:52 -0800
OK, but have you ever heard of someone beyond relieved their guy won?
I'm still thinking about moving to Canada someday because of the way our government is going about its current business, but that just means I'm quitting and the narrow-minded folks win. :)
From: Brian Menard
Subject: Re: The Fear Card
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:51:17 -0500
A fair point, but in principal no different than the Dems and others who said they would go to Canada if Bush were reelected (and then didn't when he was), or folks who said their feared for their safety because he continues to reside in the White House.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: RE: The Fear Card
On KIRO radio on the evening of Bush's second inauguration, I heard the voice of someone who was at the event and she said and I quote, "I'm beyond relieved that Bush is still president."
If that wasn't the voice of someone who was played by the GOP's Fear Card, I don't know what else it could've been.
I've voted for presidential losers before -- and winners -- and I hope I live long enough to vote for winners and losers again, but if I ever feel "beyond relieved" that my guy (or gal) won, I hope I know at least one person who will be around to remind me how wrong it is to feel that way about a presidential candidate or president.
Happy (because they won) or sad (because they lost), sure, but "beyond relieved"? How scared was she about Kerry and why? Was it at least in part because of what Cheney said about us getting hit again if Kerry's elected?
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:07:52 -0800
> From: Young H. Kim
> Subject: The Fear Card
>
> I would like a bit more discussion on this topic as well. How is the fear card
> played by the Dems? Are we talking about class warfare and "fleece the rich"
> rhetoric from the Left? If so, are the wealthy and privileged conservatives living
> in fear of the Left and Big Government destroying their lives and livelihood?
> Perhaps so given the trend in gated communities and private security guards. Help
> us to understand.
>
> --- Michael Busick wrote:
>
> >
> > How have the Dems played the post-9/11 fear card like the GOP has? Each side has
> > long said that this country would be safer with their version of government as
> > opposed to the other one, but since 9/11, the Dems haven't put together a Patriot
> > Act or curbed civil rights or invaded the privacy of national and local protest
> > groups.
> >
> > And you're right about the Founding Fathers with regard to their hypocrisy about
> > slave-owning. :)
> >
> > However, it seems like most of America (and a lot of innocent people around the
> > world) are finding themselves caught between the evangelical and neo-con fanatics
> > and the Islamic fanatics. Too bad there isn't some desolate island where these
> > fanatics can be sent to fight it out until they're all gone.
> >
> >
> > From: Brian Menard
> >Subject: Re: A rising or setting sun?
> >Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:21:28 -0500
> >
> > All that may be well and good to profess, just as folks on the other side profess
> > their arguments against their "dangerous" opponents (since BOTH sides play their
> > own versions of the fear card so successfully and well without hesitation), but
> > the bottom line remains that while one pseudo-army of Americans shares lefty views
> > and is willing to do battle in the political equivalent of MAD against the
> > righties, there is also a pseudo-army of Americans who have opposing righty views
> > and are willing to do battle in the political equivalent of MAD against the
> > lefties. At some point we've either got to be sincere in moving past the anger
> > and stubborn resolve to find a way to work together constructively, or we have to
> > try to figure out how to eliminate each other while remaining standing ourselves.
> > If 12 million illegal aliens would be difficult to identify, locate, and send out
> > of the country (and, indeed, it would!), just imagine how difficult it would be
> > for the left side of the political spectrum to get rid of the right side or vice
> > versa! Given Brian A's comments about the world's view of America, it appears no
> > place would be willing to take either side. That rather minimizes options; and,
> > since I'm not a fan of genocide, my preference is to figure out how to live
> > together, however imperfect the relationship. Going back again to our founding
> > era - and Franklin, in particular, who played a key levelheaded role in
> > negotiating compromise, there was a keen awareness during the Second Continental
> > Congress of the fundamental differences between slaveholding South and nonslave
> > North. Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence (hypocrisy factor
> > aside) was gutted of anti-slavery language by Edward Rutledge and his southern
> > block, and John Adams - no weakwilled pushover in anyone's estimation - gritted
> > his teeth and accepted imperfect progress together with his opponents over
> > self-destruction from mutual inflexibility. This is not at all to belittle the
> > deeply felt positions we all hold. I can run through my litany of media baggage,
> > Clinton baggage, resentment in response to election result resentments, etc. But
> > at the end of the day, merely spouting our respective deeply held beliefs won't
> > get us anywhere productive; it only reinforces why "we" think "they" are horrid
> > urchins that need to be crushed and consumed by a great Cosmic Otter. (Sorry, the
> > seascape my daughter showed me earlier - complete with an urchin on the sea floor
> > for an otter to eat - is still on my brain.) If we can't be tolerant enough of
> > each other's views to stave off the presumption that internal opponents are no
> > better - and perhaps worse - than external enemies, then Adamson is right about
> > the setting sun but for reasons far different that what he states. "United we
> > stand // Divided we fall // And if our backs should ever be against the wall //
> > We'll be together, together you and I" - I think it was 1970.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Busick
> > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:44 AM
> > Subject: RE: A rising or setting sun?
> > In the late 60s -- or early 70s -- a musical group called "Brotherhood Of Man"
> > had a hit with a song called "United We Stand". The chorus started with
> > (predictably) "United We Stand/Divided We Fall...". As long as one side plays the
> > fear card -- and is successful with it -- this country will never reach the
> > potential that our Founding Fathers hoped we would reach. We shouldn't have to
> > give up all of our basic, civil, American rights in order to be sufficiently safe.
> > When this country becomes a safe police state, the terrorists win. "He who
> > sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." Benjamin Franklin said that --
> > and he was never president. When we spend more time pointing out each other's
> > differences than each other's similarities, the terrorists win. When we start
> > deciding which parts of the Constitution, Bill Of Rights and Declaration Of
> > Independence work and which ones don't, the terrorists win. It's common knowledge
> > that the bad guys don't like our freedom. Why, then, are we continuing to let it
> > be taken away from us to try to fight those bad guys? Each of us is part red and
> > part blue. The right candidate to properly lead this country in 2008 -- and beyond
> > -- will remind us of that and that candidate should win.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
About Compromise and Communication...
From: "Brian Menard"
Subject: Re: About Compromise and Communication...
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:35:03 -0500
----- Original Message -----From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:51 PM
Subject: About Compromise and Communication...
Hi,
The intent of my diatribe wasn't to make a 'us vs. them' argument, although I may have succeeded in that. Certainly, politics like religion are dicey subjects. I am not as 'liberal' as a Gore Vidal, in fact in many ways I'm more like Lou Dobbs and Patrick B. In fact, I am the only one willing to admit that I will vote for any Republican nominee with the possible exception of Mitt, if Hillary gets the nomination. I guess, I would describe myself as an economic populist. I don't care whether a Republican, or Democrat is at the helm, as long as they are doing their jobs. I dislike Hillary for other reasons.
The main point of my argument was to expose the myth that things are easily fix-able. Problems have been created on both sides. And although the Republican are threatening Iran, as of late, the Democrats certainly appear to be more anti-China, which is definitely more dangerous.
I'm not anti-war either, lord know Iran has it coming, but what it would do for the economy, or the price of oil, or just from a moral standpoint is quite debatable.
I am a veteran and I have served honorably in the u.s. infantry overseas. I know what it means to sacrifice for my country and I can imagine the Hell of war.
And, yes "there is a presumption that internal opponents are no better and perhaps worse-than external enemies"-Not, however, for the reasons that you may have presumed. America is the most powerful nation the earth has ever seen. Our power, however, is finite. Like the great Empires before us, we will never be defeated by an outside force-Who is going to invade the U.S.A.? We can only be defeated, if we allow fear to get the better of us, to take away our hard earned freedoms. If we fail, it will be from within. Don't forget what happened to the Roman, Spanish, or British and Soviet Empires.
When I was in the Soviet Union, in 1988, I half-way joked with people that my purpose was to see the U.S.S.R. while it was still there. Certainly, I and everyone else traveling to Russia could see that they were bankrupting themselves over the fear they had of our great military. Are we too, to become bankrupt over a fear of Islamo-terrorism? Let's be smarter than that, and God willing we can defeat the enemies of America, both foreign and domestic. And Brian M., for what it's worth, I don't believe Republican are enemies, but I do believe that ignorance on all sides is a potential enemy and hence, our conversation, the good, the bad, the ugly.
God bless,
B.
--
"...remember the past
but do not dwell there,
face the future
where all our hopes stand."
-Israel Kamakawiwo'ole
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
> Now that we've all been able to take some Mucinex and clear the phlem out of our
> political systems, how 'bout we mosey back to more objective analysis and
> constructive dialogue? After all, if we're going to live together in this great
> land of ours, we've got to be able to appreciate the mix of perspectives and
> work together to solve the really serious immediate and long-term problems we
> face. Our party leaders and candidates do a good enough job of seeing the
> specks in their opponents' eyes despite the logs in their own, so they don't
> need our help with that. I think - the existence of all the campaign and party
> rhetoric on both sides notwithstanding - where they really can use some
> bottom-up assistance is in putting party aside to figure out where the common
> ground exists and how we can work together to find solutions we can live with
> (as opposed to those we'd like to dictate to the other side). Is this possible,
> or are we condemned to fight it out in a bloodlust battle to dominate and
> destroy? It seems that the context of Benjamin Franklin's quote about the
> colonies moving into revolution has changed drastically, but the bottom line is
> still the same: We must hang together or we will assuredly hang separately.
> Thoughts?
Subject: Re: About Compromise and Communication...
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:35:03 -0500
Brian A:
Thanks for the great explication of your stands. There's actually much with which I can agree there, even if we might squabble a bit over some of the details. Indeed, what's broken is not at all easy to fix, and both sides share culpability for their various contributions. Just curious, as an economic populist, does Huckabee resonate with you, or does the religion thing override potential economic affinity. FDT stickers remain on my vehicles, but given his performance to date I've had to give much time to thinking of backup options. Huckabee had been my #2, but I recently had an epiphany about how I assessed the field. (And his alleged us-vs-them comments last week about it being the evangelicals' turn to run the GOP, if true, will place him further down on my list.) Sixteen months ago I started a four-month investigation into Obama to see if he might be the right guy to bring the nation together. As described in previous comments, I decided, once he started filling in details behind his rhetoric, that he is not the guy. But in assessing GOP options, I analyzed candidates with a different screen of priorities, namely, who is closest to what I want. Lately - in part due to our exchange here, so thanks guys - I appreciate acutely the need to apply the same test to candidates of both sides to find someone willing to do more than speak about working together despite having strong views on both (or all) sides; and, if it was important for me to find a Democratic candidate willing to work with the other side instead of convert the other side, so it should be with my GOP search. In 2000, I voted for John McCain in the Virginia primary. In the years since, I have called him an "opportunist" and other unkind things, swearing I would never support him in another nomination battle. But looking at the entire field, he more than anyone seems to me to have a record of really being willing to work with both sides to do things that need to be done. I'm not yet ready to say I'm backing him, but going that next step is a whole lot closer than the distance he's traveled in my esteem in the last few weeks. Perhaps, though, only a third party will be able to do this (which means that it probably won't get done).
As for defeat, I do think we are susceptible to invasion, though not by a uniform-wearing army. (BTW, I think you are the only participant here who has served in uniform, which I hadn't forgotten - I don't think I've made any comments that might seem to have overlooked your service, but if I left any such impression, my apologies...You deserve nothing but credit for your service.) But that invasion can only come from our sleeping at the guard post. I don't mean we need to go Tancredo and close the borders while inserting tracking chips into everyone to follow them around. We are a nation of immigrants of all colors, shapes, and sizes, and we value freedom - going back to that shocking statement from our hypocritical Founders' (or, if you want to take it back further, from Aristotle) that we obtain our rights not from government but by virtue of our existence. But, given that there are folks who would be quite pleased to stop our breathing because we breathe (and Ron Paul's idea that if we just offer to trade with them all will be well...when much of what we have to offer in trade is what makes them want to eradicate us), prudent caution is in order. We just have to figure out what "prudent caution" means for us collectively. Meanwhile, your point about decay from within is quite on target. And I think we're in agreement (correct me if I'm wrong) that nobody in the arena is addressing the longer term economic dangers sufficiently. It's not by chance that my kids (ages 7 and 9) and I go to Mandarin Chinese class on Saturday mornings. Whether to be better equipped for saving our country or surviving it, we need to know China and understand our relationship with it in this new century, and we cannot sell our existence to China in order to defend against terrorist threats. Your USSR anecdote is scarily apt.
Finally, I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on ignorance. I've got no beef with real conversation. Thus DoasIsayandnotasIdo Jefferson's quip about no idea being too dangerous to discuss so long as reason is left free to combat it. Having grown up as a Republican in intolerant Seattle, where you can be anything you want to be as long as you think correctly, I appreciate your tone. Thanks for good dialogue!
- Brian M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:51 PM
Subject: About Compromise and Communication...
Hi,
The intent of my diatribe wasn't to make a 'us vs. them' argument, although I may have succeeded in that. Certainly, politics like religion are dicey subjects. I am not as 'liberal' as a Gore Vidal, in fact in many ways I'm more like Lou Dobbs and Patrick B. In fact, I am the only one willing to admit that I will vote for any Republican nominee with the possible exception of Mitt, if Hillary gets the nomination. I guess, I would describe myself as an economic populist. I don't care whether a Republican, or Democrat is at the helm, as long as they are doing their jobs. I dislike Hillary for other reasons.
The main point of my argument was to expose the myth that things are easily fix-able. Problems have been created on both sides. And although the Republican are threatening Iran, as of late, the Democrats certainly appear to be more anti-China, which is definitely more dangerous.
I'm not anti-war either, lord know Iran has it coming, but what it would do for the economy, or the price of oil, or just from a moral standpoint is quite debatable.
I am a veteran and I have served honorably in the u.s. infantry overseas. I know what it means to sacrifice for my country and I can imagine the Hell of war.
And, yes "there is a presumption that internal opponents are no better and perhaps worse-than external enemies"-Not, however, for the reasons that you may have presumed. America is the most powerful nation the earth has ever seen. Our power, however, is finite. Like the great Empires before us, we will never be defeated by an outside force-Who is going to invade the U.S.A.? We can only be defeated, if we allow fear to get the better of us, to take away our hard earned freedoms. If we fail, it will be from within. Don't forget what happened to the Roman, Spanish, or British and Soviet Empires.
When I was in the Soviet Union, in 1988, I half-way joked with people that my purpose was to see the U.S.S.R. while it was still there. Certainly, I and everyone else traveling to Russia could see that they were bankrupting themselves over the fear they had of our great military. Are we too, to become bankrupt over a fear of Islamo-terrorism? Let's be smarter than that, and God willing we can defeat the enemies of America, both foreign and domestic. And Brian M., for what it's worth, I don't believe Republican are enemies, but I do believe that ignorance on all sides is a potential enemy and hence, our conversation, the good, the bad, the ugly.
God bless,
B.
--
"...remember the past
but do not dwell there,
face the future
where all our hopes stand."
-Israel Kamakawiwo'ole
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
> Now that we've all been able to take some Mucinex and clear the phlem out of our
> political systems, how 'bout we mosey back to more objective analysis and
> constructive dialogue? After all, if we're going to live together in this great
> land of ours, we've got to be able to appreciate the mix of perspectives and
> work together to solve the really serious immediate and long-term problems we
> face. Our party leaders and candidates do a good enough job of seeing the
> specks in their opponents' eyes despite the logs in their own, so they don't
> need our help with that. I think - the existence of all the campaign and party
> rhetoric on both sides notwithstanding - where they really can use some
> bottom-up assistance is in putting party aside to figure out where the common
> ground exists and how we can work together to find solutions we can live with
> (as opposed to those we'd like to dictate to the other side). Is this possible,
> or are we condemned to fight it out in a bloodlust battle to dominate and
> destroy? It seems that the context of Benjamin Franklin's quote about the
> colonies moving into revolution has changed drastically, but the bottom line is
> still the same: We must hang together or we will assuredly hang separately.
> Thoughts?
On the media...
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Subject: On the media...
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:16:21 +0000
Watching the Sunday morning talking heads, I'm reminded of what Gore Vidal said, about the state of American news and the way we get our information. Since, he articulates the point better than I ever could, please click the link below, and let me know what you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWODMla3IWk
Also, Alan Woods piece, "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire"
http://www.marxist.com/usa/decline_and_fall.html
B.
--
"...remember the past
but do not dwell there,
face the future
where all our hopes stand."
-Israel Kamakawiwo'ole
Subject: On the media...
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:16:21 +0000
Watching the Sunday morning talking heads, I'm reminded of what Gore Vidal said, about the state of American news and the way we get our information. Since, he articulates the point better than I ever could, please click the link below, and let me know what you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWODMla3IWk
Also, Alan Woods piece, "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire"
http://www.marxist.com/usa/decline_and_fall.html
B.
--
"...remember the past
but do not dwell there,
face the future
where all our hopes stand."
-Israel Kamakawiwo'ole
A Setting Sun! Sorry.
From: Michael Busick
Subject: RE: A Setting Sun! Sorry, :o(
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:54:39 -0800
You know, it's bad enough that the Bush administration walks away from international treaties (or unsigns them or dismisses them out of hand), but when they start tossing out useful documents like the Geneva Convention, the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, it should have been nationwide cause for alarm.
Then when this administration decided to turn its back on the Magna Carta, congressional impeachment hearings should've been held.
It's bad enough that this administration has already forgotten about Vietnam, but it also seems like they were all out sick when their history teachers told the rest of their classmates about the Roman Freakin' Empire.
Our government used to have checks and balances, not signing statements.
How bad does the next president(s) have to screw up for there to be impeachment hearings? I heard about a website that has been keeping track of all of the unresolved Bush scandals (the U.S. attorney firings, Valerie Plame's outing, for just two examples) and the current number is something like 52. Before the last one gets settled, another one follows right behind it and that one isn't settled and this country as a whole can't hold a collective thought in its head long enough to stop thinking about what Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears are up to right this very minute.
Cheney said late in the 2004 campaign that there's a danger if American voters make the wrong choice in November that we'll get hit again. If he had been my running mate, he would've been fired before he finished that sentence. I don't blame Bush for hardly anything that's gone wrong since January 2001 because it seems fairly clear to me that Bush has had little or nothing to do with anything that this administration has screwed up. I can't think of a single issue that Bush has had the initiative on because everything I hear him say sounds like something the evangelicals or the neo-cons or both would tell him to say. He's about seven years too late on global warming or Mideast peace. I had to laugh when he told Israel that they shouldn't occupy Arab lands. What does he believe Iraq is?
I'd like to think this current Iraq conflict isn't a Christian crusade, but Blackwater's actions lead me to believe otherwise.
I'd like to think he didn't know in advance something like 9/11 wasn't going to happen, but can any of us come up with a single plan that the Bush administration had for this country that was stopped/thwarted/impeded by 9/11 -- instead of escalated? It seems to me that 9/11 has allowed the Bush administration to do whatever they wanted to do with this country and the Middle East.
Bush himself has given three different accounts of where and when he first heard about a plane hitting the first tower (#1 -- Andrew Card told him in that classroom, #2 -- he was told inside his limo in Sarasota, #3 -- he saw the video the day it happened (which we know is wrong because no one saw that French documentary footage -- about NYC firefighters -- until at least 9/12 except the guys who filmed it).
I'm sure every single one of us still knows where we were and what we were doing when we first heard about what happened.
Yes, I'm ranting all over the place here, but it all comes back to one statement for me -- I can't believe Americans would give our country away so easily to a group of people that are obviously only thinking about their own selfish desires.
I'd prefer not to keep talking about this, though, because I just get more and more angry thinking about it. :)
----------------------
From: Michael Busick
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:32:31 -0800
I'm a huge fan of Olbermann and Maher because (just like Jon Stewart) they skewer both sides when necessary. I'm also disappointed more people aren't paying attention to Olbermann's Special Comments because he's saying good things about important issues.
---------------------
From: "craigs11"
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:15:14 -0800
I was wrong. the Krugman column appeared on Saturday.-- OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Comeback Continent
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The next time a politician tries to scare you with the European bogeyman, bear this in mind: Europe's economy is doing O.K.
--craig
----- Original Message -----
From: "craigs11"
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 5:54 PM
The only reason you feel "far left" is that Americans (by and large) don't SEE what is happening to their country. If it ain't on TV, how would we know?
Take a look at Paul Krugman's column in today's NYT. Somewhat more gently, he is saying what you are saying.
--craig
---------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:32:50 -0800
From: jcsanders@wsu.edu
I haven't been part of this discussion, but I just wanted to second Brian's motion on Naomi Klein (a Canadian). I haven't read the book, but I've been listening to her and watching her for a few months and her analysis is pretty interesting, especially about the uses of torture.
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 1:07 AM
Subject: A Setting Sun! Sorry, :o(
Hi,
Sorry, for my absence from the discussion. A lot has been communicated and I don't know where to begin. My wife loves to monopolize the computer and I like to use it for research and comedy.
I don't know whether it is easier to approach the discussion point by point, or just try to explain where I am coming from and address issues of commonality, disagreement, or both.
The problem being, I often feel like I am way left of center and need to explain what I know, or how I see things, in order to have a discussion about them.
To begin with, I tend to look at America and American politics from an outsiders point of view. I believe this to be the case because I am married to a foreign national and travel quite a bit. In fact, next month I'm taking a vacation to the PRC and Japan after that.
That said, the rest of the world doesn't see us in the same light that we see ourselves. Americans tend to believe that the world either respects us, or fears us. We tend to think of ourselves as the good guys, or at least a net positive for the world. In reality, we are no longer very well respected. For example, on numerous trips to Europe and Asia, people often remarked that America is such a poor country, with a crumbling infrastructure, weak health and environmental standards. Most believe us to be militaristic, greedy and ignorant and above all dangerous. In fact, recent surveys in places like England, France and Germany have revealed to us that, we Americans are considered to be a greater threat to world peace and security than countries such as Syria, China, and Iran.
How can this be? How have things changed? Why have things changed so much?
In 1985, I traveled to Sweden and was amazed at the love and respect that Europeans felt for us. One relative told me, "I think your country is the freest, in all the world." Others would tell me, that although Sweden is a neutral country, "We're really on your side." Today, we don't hear those things. Instead, we are thought of as a lawless nation driven by greed and the profit motive. The world's number one outlaw state that has resorted to terrorism on a grand scale in order to force an imperial hegemony on the face of the earth. We are seen as an aggressor nation, out of control, both within and without. We are a nation with a huge prison population, greater per capita than Iran, Russia, or China! We are seen as a state that has gotten rid of habeas corpus, tortured and imprisoned people without benefit of charges, and trial.
Further, the American media and American politics are viewed through a jaundiced eye. The press is not free, rather it is controlled by corporate interest. That is how they explain Americans complete lack of interest in the fact that a presidential election was stole from them. Or the reality that, many Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or was directly involved in 911.
Why should it matter? Why should we care, what others think about us? We should care because we are not alone in this world. We need others nations to accomplish goals, things that are essential for security and prosperity, larger than the interests of individual nation states.
America is no longer the shining city atop a hill. We are quickly becoming the world's foremost pariah nation state. For instance, we are the only industrial nation besides Australia not to sign the Kyoto protocol, we are becoming increasingly isolated and irrelevant.
...And as we argue and debate the merits of political candidates, we should remind ourselves that the differences between Republicans and Democrats are small, when looked at from abroad. Because, in reality, we have only two large political parties, we are seen as having very little choice. You know, it's like a choice between Pepsi and Coke, it really makes no real difference at all. Both parties are controlled largely by the corporate lobbyist whose money puts them in power and whose interests mostly trump the needs of the American people.
Lastly, the damage has been done. I don't believe any future president can reverse the fundamental destruction that has been done to our nation economically, or politically.
After-all, in the last twenty-six years we have gone from the world's largest creditor nation to the world largest debtor nation. Outside of the military and government the largest employer of thirty years or so ago was general motors, today it is Walmart.
Need I remind you that the classic definition of a third world banana republic, is a nation which exports raw materials and imports finished goods. America is quickly becoming such a nation. Alas, when you look at our trade deficit, our current accounts deficit, our unfunded mandates, social security and Medicaid, etc., the full picture becomes more apparent. We are a nation in decline. We are taking on the characteristics of failed states. The housing market bubble, predatory lending, the stock market decline and upcoming recession are just symptoms of something much more dire.
An analysis done by the Mackenzie Global Institute found that global capital markets would be able to finance a near doubling of the US current account deficit to one trillion 600 billion dollars a year by 2012, 9% of GDP in five years time. They point out the u.s. will soak up 77% of the total available pool of surplus capital in the entire world and by soaking it up, it means borrowing, it means we'll have to pay it back or give up our country. That's already happening, by the way. Look at who own the ports in this country, not American companies. The SaudiS have a growing interest in Bank of America, to name a few.
Therefore, by 2012 the U.S. will have an external debt of GDP ratio of 46% roughly similar to that of Mexico today. That is what Reaganomics has brought us. This is the Disastrous course that Reagan put us on and George W. Bush has been perpetuating.
Michael, I love the quote by Ben Franklin and believe that Lincoln said, something similar as well. I totally agree with what you had to say about fear and advise you to read Naomi Klein's book, the Shock Doctrine, if you haven't already.
Obermann, on 'fear' : the beginning of the end of America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs&feature=related
Bill Maher: The Decider- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6I1Ggv_HBY&feature=related
--------------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Subject: A rising or setting sun?
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:09:15 -0500
Now that we've all been able to take some Mucinex and clear the phlem out of our political systems, how 'bout we mosey back to more objective analysis and constructive dialogue? After all, if we're going to live together in this great land of ours, we've got to be able to appreciate the mix of perspectives and work together to solve the really serious immediate and long-term problems we face. Our party leaders and candidates do a good enough job of seeing the specks in their opponents' eyes despite the logs in their own, so they don't need our help with that. I think - the existence of all the campaign and party rhetoric on both sides notwithstanding - where they really can use some bottom-up assistance is in putting party aside to figure out where the common ground exists and how we can work together to find solutions we can live with (as opposed to those we'd like to dictate to the other side). Is this possible, or are we condemned to fight it out in a bloodlust battle to dominate and destroy? It seems that the context of Benjamin Franklin's quote about the colonies moving into revolution has changed drastically, but the bottom line is still the same: We must hang together or we will assuredly hang separately. Thoughts?
Subject: RE: A Setting Sun! Sorry, :o(
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:54:39 -0800
You know, it's bad enough that the Bush administration walks away from international treaties (or unsigns them or dismisses them out of hand), but when they start tossing out useful documents like the Geneva Convention, the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, it should have been nationwide cause for alarm.
Then when this administration decided to turn its back on the Magna Carta, congressional impeachment hearings should've been held.
It's bad enough that this administration has already forgotten about Vietnam, but it also seems like they were all out sick when their history teachers told the rest of their classmates about the Roman Freakin' Empire.
Our government used to have checks and balances, not signing statements.
How bad does the next president(s) have to screw up for there to be impeachment hearings? I heard about a website that has been keeping track of all of the unresolved Bush scandals (the U.S. attorney firings, Valerie Plame's outing, for just two examples) and the current number is something like 52. Before the last one gets settled, another one follows right behind it and that one isn't settled and this country as a whole can't hold a collective thought in its head long enough to stop thinking about what Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears are up to right this very minute.
Cheney said late in the 2004 campaign that there's a danger if American voters make the wrong choice in November that we'll get hit again. If he had been my running mate, he would've been fired before he finished that sentence. I don't blame Bush for hardly anything that's gone wrong since January 2001 because it seems fairly clear to me that Bush has had little or nothing to do with anything that this administration has screwed up. I can't think of a single issue that Bush has had the initiative on because everything I hear him say sounds like something the evangelicals or the neo-cons or both would tell him to say. He's about seven years too late on global warming or Mideast peace. I had to laugh when he told Israel that they shouldn't occupy Arab lands. What does he believe Iraq is?
I'd like to think this current Iraq conflict isn't a Christian crusade, but Blackwater's actions lead me to believe otherwise.
I'd like to think he didn't know in advance something like 9/11 wasn't going to happen, but can any of us come up with a single plan that the Bush administration had for this country that was stopped/thwarted/impeded by 9/11 -- instead of escalated? It seems to me that 9/11 has allowed the Bush administration to do whatever they wanted to do with this country and the Middle East.
Bush himself has given three different accounts of where and when he first heard about a plane hitting the first tower (#1 -- Andrew Card told him in that classroom, #2 -- he was told inside his limo in Sarasota, #3 -- he saw the video the day it happened (which we know is wrong because no one saw that French documentary footage -- about NYC firefighters -- until at least 9/12 except the guys who filmed it).
I'm sure every single one of us still knows where we were and what we were doing when we first heard about what happened.
Yes, I'm ranting all over the place here, but it all comes back to one statement for me -- I can't believe Americans would give our country away so easily to a group of people that are obviously only thinking about their own selfish desires.
I'd prefer not to keep talking about this, though, because I just get more and more angry thinking about it. :)
----------------------
From: Michael Busick
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:32:31 -0800
I'm a huge fan of Olbermann and Maher because (just like Jon Stewart) they skewer both sides when necessary. I'm also disappointed more people aren't paying attention to Olbermann's Special Comments because he's saying good things about important issues.
---------------------
From: "craigs11"
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:15:14 -0800
I was wrong. the Krugman column appeared on Saturday.-- OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Comeback Continent
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The next time a politician tries to scare you with the European bogeyman, bear this in mind: Europe's economy is doing O.K.
--craig
----- Original Message -----
From: "craigs11"
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 5:54 PM
The only reason you feel "far left" is that Americans (by and large) don't SEE what is happening to their country. If it ain't on TV, how would we know?
Take a look at Paul Krugman's column in today's NYT. Somewhat more gently, he is saying what you are saying.
--craig
---------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:32:50 -0800
From: jcsanders@wsu.edu
I haven't been part of this discussion, but I just wanted to second Brian's motion on Naomi Klein (a Canadian). I haven't read the book, but I've been listening to her and watching her for a few months and her analysis is pretty interesting, especially about the uses of torture.
Here is a 6 part presentation of her basic ideas on the Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3Pb_StJn4
Jeff
------------------
------------------
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 1:07 AM
Subject: A Setting Sun! Sorry, :o(
Sorry, for my absence from the discussion. A lot has been communicated and I don't know where to begin. My wife loves to monopolize the computer and I like to use it for research and comedy.
I don't know whether it is easier to approach the discussion point by point, or just try to explain where I am coming from and address issues of commonality, disagreement, or both.
The problem being, I often feel like I am way left of center and need to explain what I know, or how I see things, in order to have a discussion about them.
To begin with, I tend to look at America and American politics from an outsiders point of view. I believe this to be the case because I am married to a foreign national and travel quite a bit. In fact, next month I'm taking a vacation to the PRC and Japan after that.
That said, the rest of the world doesn't see us in the same light that we see ourselves. Americans tend to believe that the world either respects us, or fears us. We tend to think of ourselves as the good guys, or at least a net positive for the world. In reality, we are no longer very well respected. For example, on numerous trips to Europe and Asia, people often remarked that America is such a poor country, with a crumbling infrastructure, weak health and environmental standards. Most believe us to be militaristic, greedy and ignorant and above all dangerous. In fact, recent surveys in places like England, France and Germany have revealed to us that, we Americans are considered to be a greater threat to world peace and security than countries such as Syria, China, and Iran.
How can this be? How have things changed? Why have things changed so much?
In 1985, I traveled to Sweden and was amazed at the love and respect that Europeans felt for us. One relative told me, "I think your country is the freest, in all the world." Others would tell me, that although Sweden is a neutral country, "We're really on your side." Today, we don't hear those things. Instead, we are thought of as a lawless nation driven by greed and the profit motive. The world's number one outlaw state that has resorted to terrorism on a grand scale in order to force an imperial hegemony on the face of the earth. We are seen as an aggressor nation, out of control, both within and without. We are a nation with a huge prison population, greater per capita than Iran, Russia, or China! We are seen as a state that has gotten rid of habeas corpus, tortured and imprisoned people without benefit of charges, and trial.
Further, the American media and American politics are viewed through a jaundiced eye. The press is not free, rather it is controlled by corporate interest. That is how they explain Americans complete lack of interest in the fact that a presidential election was stole from them. Or the reality that, many Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or was directly involved in 911.
Why should it matter? Why should we care, what others think about us? We should care because we are not alone in this world. We need others nations to accomplish goals, things that are essential for security and prosperity, larger than the interests of individual nation states.
America is no longer the shining city atop a hill. We are quickly becoming the world's foremost pariah nation state. For instance, we are the only industrial nation besides Australia not to sign the Kyoto protocol, we are becoming increasingly isolated and irrelevant.
...And as we argue and debate the merits of political candidates, we should remind ourselves that the differences between Republicans and Democrats are small, when looked at from abroad. Because, in reality, we have only two large political parties, we are seen as having very little choice. You know, it's like a choice between Pepsi and Coke, it really makes no real difference at all. Both parties are controlled largely by the corporate lobbyist whose money puts them in power and whose interests mostly trump the needs of the American people.
Lastly, the damage has been done. I don't believe any future president can reverse the fundamental destruction that has been done to our nation economically, or politically.
After-all, in the last twenty-six years we have gone from the world's largest creditor nation to the world largest debtor nation. Outside of the military and government the largest employer of thirty years or so ago was general motors, today it is Walmart.
Need I remind you that the classic definition of a third world banana republic, is a nation which exports raw materials and imports finished goods. America is quickly becoming such a nation. Alas, when you look at our trade deficit, our current accounts deficit, our unfunded mandates, social security and Medicaid, etc., the full picture becomes more apparent. We are a nation in decline. We are taking on the characteristics of failed states. The housing market bubble, predatory lending, the stock market decline and upcoming recession are just symptoms of something much more dire.
An analysis done by the Mackenzie Global Institute found that global capital markets would be able to finance a near doubling of the US current account deficit to one trillion 600 billion dollars a year by 2012, 9% of GDP in five years time. They point out the u.s. will soak up 77% of the total available pool of surplus capital in the entire world and by soaking it up, it means borrowing, it means we'll have to pay it back or give up our country. That's already happening, by the way. Look at who own the ports in this country, not American companies. The SaudiS have a growing interest in Bank of America, to name a few.
Therefore, by 2012 the U.S. will have an external debt of GDP ratio of 46% roughly similar to that of Mexico today. That is what Reaganomics has brought us. This is the Disastrous course that Reagan put us on and George W. Bush has been perpetuating.
Michael, I love the quote by Ben Franklin and believe that Lincoln said, something similar as well. I totally agree with what you had to say about fear and advise you to read Naomi Klein's book, the Shock Doctrine, if you haven't already.
Obermann, on 'fear' : the beginning of the end of America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs&feature=related
Bill Maher: The Decider- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6I1Ggv_HBY&feature=related
--------------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Subject: A rising or setting sun?
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:09:15 -0500
Now that we've all been able to take some Mucinex and clear the phlem out of our political systems, how 'bout we mosey back to more objective analysis and constructive dialogue? After all, if we're going to live together in this great land of ours, we've got to be able to appreciate the mix of perspectives and work together to solve the really serious immediate and long-term problems we face. Our party leaders and candidates do a good enough job of seeing the specks in their opponents' eyes despite the logs in their own, so they don't need our help with that. I think - the existence of all the campaign and party rhetoric on both sides notwithstanding - where they really can use some bottom-up assistance is in putting party aside to figure out where the common ground exists and how we can work together to find solutions we can live with (as opposed to those we'd like to dictate to the other side). Is this possible, or are we condemned to fight it out in a bloodlust battle to dominate and destroy? It seems that the context of Benjamin Franklin's quote about the colonies moving into revolution has changed drastically, but the bottom line is still the same: We must hang together or we will assuredly hang separately. Thoughts?
Saturday, January 12, 2008
A rising or setting sun?
From: Michael Busick
Subject: RE: A rising or setting sun?
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:01:24 -0800
How have the Dems played the post-9/11 fear card like the GOP has? Each side has long said that this country would be safer with their version of government as opposed to the other one, but since 9/11, the Dems haven't put together a Patriot Act or curbed civil rights or invaded the privacy of national and local protest groups.
And you're right about the Founding Fathers with regard to their hypocrisy about slave-owning. :)
However, it seems like most of America (and a lot of innocent people around the world) are finding themselves caught between the evangelical and neo-con fanatics and the Islamic fanatics. Too bad there isn't some desolate island where these fanatics can be sent to fight it out until they're all gone.
-----------------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
To: yhkpenguin@yahoo.com; b.adamson@comcast.net; misterb_46@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: A rising or setting sun?
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:21:28 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:44 AM
In the late 60s -- or early 70s -- a musical group called "Brotherhood Of Man" had a hit with a song called "United We Stand". The chorus started with (predictably) "United We Stand/Divided We Fall...".
As long as one side plays the fear card -- and is successful with it -- this country will never reach the potential that our Founding Fathers hoped we would reach.
We shouldn't have to give up all of our basic, civil, American rights in order to be sufficiently safe. When this country becomes a safe police state, the terrorists win.
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." Benjamin Franklin said that -- and he was never president.
When we spend more time pointing out each other's differences than each other's similarities, the terrorists win.
When we start deciding which parts of the Constitution, Bill Of Rights and Declaration Of Independence work and which ones don't, the terrorists win.
It's common knowledge that the bad guys don't like our freedom. Why, then, are we continuing to let it be taken away from us to try to fight those bad guys?
Each of us is part red and part blue. The right candidate to properly lead this country in 2008 -- and beyond -- will remind us of that and that candidate should win.
--------------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Subject: A rising or setting sun?
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:09:15 -0500
Now that we've all been able to take some Mucinex and clear the phlem out of our political systems, how 'bout we mosey back to more objective analysis and constructive dialogue? After all, if we're going to live together in this great land of ours, we've got to be able to appreciate the mix of perspectives and work together to solve the really serious immediate and long-term problems we face. Our party leaders and candidates do a good enough job of seeing the specks in their opponents' eyes despite the logs in their own, so they don't need our help with that. I think - the existence of all the campaign and party rhetoric on both sides notwithstanding - where they really can use some bottom-up assistance is in putting party aside to figure out where the common ground exists and how we can work together to find solutions we can live with (as opposed to those we'd like to dictate to the other side). Is this possible, or are we condemned to fight it out in a bloodlust battle to dominate and destroy? It seems that the context of Benjamin Franklin's quote about the colonies moving into revolution has changed drastically, but the bottom line is still the same: We must hang together or we will assuredly hang separately. Thoughts?
Subject: RE: A rising or setting sun?
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:01:24 -0800
How have the Dems played the post-9/11 fear card like the GOP has? Each side has long said that this country would be safer with their version of government as opposed to the other one, but since 9/11, the Dems haven't put together a Patriot Act or curbed civil rights or invaded the privacy of national and local protest groups.
And you're right about the Founding Fathers with regard to their hypocrisy about slave-owning. :)
However, it seems like most of America (and a lot of innocent people around the world) are finding themselves caught between the evangelical and neo-con fanatics and the Islamic fanatics. Too bad there isn't some desolate island where these fanatics can be sent to fight it out until they're all gone.
-----------------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
To: yhkpenguin@yahoo.com; b.adamson@comcast.net; misterb_46@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: A rising or setting sun?
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:21:28 -0500
All that may be well and good to profess, just as folks on the other side profess their arguments against their "dangerous" opponents (since BOTH sides play their own versions of the fear card so successfully and well without hesitation), but the bottom line remains that while one pseudo-army of Americans shares lefty views and is willing to do battle in the political equivalent of MAD against the righties, there is also a pseudo-army of Americans who have opposing righty views and are willing to do battle in the political equivalent of MAD against the lefties. At some point we've either got to be sincere in moving past the anger and stubborn resolve to find a way to work together constructively, or we have to try to figure out how to eliminate each other while remaining standing ourselves. If 12 million illegal aliens would be difficult to identify, locate, and send out of the country (and, indeed, it would!), just imagine how difficult it would be for the left side of the political spectrum to get rid of the right side or vice versa! Given Brian A's comments about the world's view of America, it appears no place would be willing to take either side. That rather minimizes options; and, since I'm not a fan of genocide, my preference is to figure out how to live together, however imperfect the relationship. Going back again to our founding era - and Franklin, in particular, who played a key levelheaded role in negotiating compromise, there was a keen awareness during the Second Continental Congress of the fundamental differences between slaveholding South and nonslave North. Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence (hypocrisy factor aside) was gutted of anti-slavery language by Edward Rutledge and his southern block, and John Adams - no weakwilled pushover in anyone's estimation - gritted his teeth and accepted imperfect progress together with his opponents over self-destruction from mutual inflexibility. This is not at all to belittle the deeply felt positions we all hold. I can run through my litany of media baggage, Clinton baggage, resentment in response to election result resentments, etc. But at the end of the day, merely spouting our respective deeply held beliefs won't get us anywhere productive; it only reinforces why "we" think "they" are horrid urchins that need to be crushed and consumed by a great Cosmic Otter. (Sorry, the seascape my daughter showed me earlier - complete with an urchin on the sea floor for an otter to eat - is still on my brain.) If we can't be tolerant enough of each other's views to stave off the presumption that internal opponents are no better - and perhaps worse - than external enemies, then Adamson is right about the setting sun but for reasons far different that what he states. "United we stand // Divided we fall // And if our backs should ever be against the wall // We'll be together, together you and I" - I think it was 1970.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:44 AM
In the late 60s -- or early 70s -- a musical group called "Brotherhood Of Man" had a hit with a song called "United We Stand". The chorus started with (predictably) "United We Stand/Divided We Fall...".
As long as one side plays the fear card -- and is successful with it -- this country will never reach the potential that our Founding Fathers hoped we would reach.
We shouldn't have to give up all of our basic, civil, American rights in order to be sufficiently safe. When this country becomes a safe police state, the terrorists win.
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." Benjamin Franklin said that -- and he was never president.
When we spend more time pointing out each other's differences than each other's similarities, the terrorists win.
When we start deciding which parts of the Constitution, Bill Of Rights and Declaration Of Independence work and which ones don't, the terrorists win.
It's common knowledge that the bad guys don't like our freedom. Why, then, are we continuing to let it be taken away from us to try to fight those bad guys?
Each of us is part red and part blue. The right candidate to properly lead this country in 2008 -- and beyond -- will remind us of that and that candidate should win.
--------------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Subject: A rising or setting sun?
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:09:15 -0500
Now that we've all been able to take some Mucinex and clear the phlem out of our political systems, how 'bout we mosey back to more objective analysis and constructive dialogue? After all, if we're going to live together in this great land of ours, we've got to be able to appreciate the mix of perspectives and work together to solve the really serious immediate and long-term problems we face. Our party leaders and candidates do a good enough job of seeing the specks in their opponents' eyes despite the logs in their own, so they don't need our help with that. I think - the existence of all the campaign and party rhetoric on both sides notwithstanding - where they really can use some bottom-up assistance is in putting party aside to figure out where the common ground exists and how we can work together to find solutions we can live with (as opposed to those we'd like to dictate to the other side). Is this possible, or are we condemned to fight it out in a bloodlust battle to dominate and destroy? It seems that the context of Benjamin Franklin's quote about the colonies moving into revolution has changed drastically, but the bottom line is still the same: We must hang together or we will assuredly hang separately. Thoughts?
Friday, January 11, 2008
Another Rant-And the flies continue to drop...
From: Michael Busick
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:54:44 -0800
Wasn't it Michael Moore that called Bill Clinton a Republican president in one of his recent books?
I'd also heard/read somewhere that Clinton sent more money to the military than Bush 41 did.
And doesn't it seem now like that economic boom in the 90s was a false one -- given the Enron/Tyco/Adelphia/Health South/others scandals that followed.
My stock portfolio in 2000 didn't look nearly as good as it did in 1999 -- and Clinton was still president. :)
Of course, the guy that really controls our economy's performance isn't the president (though the president can really screw up our budget by giving our surplus to rich people -- who so obviously deserve it because they're already rich people), it's the Fed Reserve Chairman. :)
---------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:53:24 -0800
From: yhkpenguin@yahoo.com
Well, now we're getting some juices flowing. :-) Actually, I think BGA was mostly tongue-in-cheek in his rant, but it managed to get a bit of a rant from BRM as well. Not exactly what I was going for with our continuing political dialogue, but I'll run with it. "YHK" comments to BRM's are below. I see now the evidence that yours and my comments below embodies the polarized opinions in American politics. I'll try my best to be civil but honest; I can't promise not to be sarcastic or a wise-ass, though. ;-)
> --- Brian Menard wrote:
> Brian:
> Sounds like you took your Bob Dole pill this morning, and I do NOT mean the one for which he does t.v. commercials.
> First, in the interest of full disclosure, my mother was a Goldwater Girl. Okay, in truth she did oppo at RNC headquarters on Capitol Hill (that's DC, not Seattle!) in 1964. But I enjoy razzing her about being a GG just to get her hack up. She can say she was doing substantive politics back when Hillary Rodham's involvement consisted of touting candidates and cocktail parties.
> Second, as to your suggestion that we consider Blow-Bill-Blow a Republican, let's not and say we didn't. Let me state in no uncertain terms: We don't want him.
YHK: I don't think anyone expects the Reps to take Bubba under their wing, now or ever. I doubt Bubba would like that, either.
> Just because he decided after two failed years as a left-wing president that the only way he could do anything competent in office was to jump on board the new GOP majority's agenda train, hijack it, and take credit for it from a media quite happy to give it to him instead of to the GOP Congress, doesn't mean he's one of us. Yick! Even the suggestion makes me want to shower and wash off the muck.
YHK: This comment is interesting. Pray tell, for what should the Newt/DeLay/Lott/Frist GOP Congress get credit, and what did Clinton "hijack" from the so-called Republican Revolution? The "Contract With (On) America"? The legislative gridlock? The budget deadlock shutting down the government? The impeachment proceedings that were a complete waste of the nation's time and money?
YHK: You must mean the economic boom of the 90's. George "I hate broccoli" "41" H.W. Bush didn't oversee it. Yeah, that was all Clinton's and Dems' doing w/o any Reps help. ;-) And that's the way it's gonna be sold to the public in this election because "43" Dubya did WAAAY worse than Bubba on the economic front, not to mention the myriad of other domestic blunders and scandals. I'm sure the Reps will be more than prepared to blame the Dem Congress, but the Republican Revolution lasted a good long 12 years, so the Dems must have ruined things all in the last year. Darn.
> What a shame that someone so brilliant can have a morality grounded solely in his own aggrandizement. A legacy of which to be proud. Okay, I go that out of my system. On to other things.
YHK: As I mentioned before, GOP is licking their chops to go after Hillary with the Clinton "legacy". Good Lord, how the Reps hate the Clintons! Don't people realize it was a "vast right-wing conspiracy"? ;-) How much you wanna bet that that'll get thrown in her face, if she's the nominee?
YHK: I still recall soon after 9/11 that some people dared to say that Dubya could be ranked among presidents like Lincoln and Washington. Sadly for all of us, Dubya has hit new presidential lows, and his regime is too current even to be referred to as a "legacy". It's more like a living "nightmare" from the Dems and Ron Paul's perspective, which segues me into...
> Third, did Bloomberg switch BACK to the Dems or did he just go independent? I think it was the latter, but I may misremember that.
YHK: This isn't the segue I meant, but does anyone Bloomin' care about Bloomburger? I don't, unless he does the Dems a favor like Perot the Hero. Those lucky-ass Clintons; that's why the Reps hate 'em so much...
> Finally, Ron Paul...Oh, Ron Paul. The best answer he gave in last night's debate was his response to the question that he might not really be a Republican. It was a very rational litany of historically based Republicanisms. Ron Paul is a very rational guy. Unfortunately for him, I think he's also nuts. The most rational process still goes awry when it starts from lunatic assumptions or seeks lunatic results. Please don't use ANYTHING he says/writes/does as representative of the rest of us in the GOP world. Big Tent has its advantages. Ron Paul, apparently, is one of its disadvantages.
YHK: BRM, why do you think Paul is nuts? Granted, "your" Congressman, the kooky Kucinich, publicly declared his belief in UFOs (still wouldn't call DK nuts, though), but I don't see why you label Paul as nuts. Okay, if this Ron Paul Political Report newsletter stuff is actual truth and can be proven as linked to him directly, then I'll call him nuts as well. Other than that I thought he outlined his "not one of the lemmings" Republican principles quite well ("rational litany of historically based Republicanisms") in the debates last night. [Lest you think I watched Fox, I caught the highlights on the Lehrer Newshour.] I didn't see anything nutty in his criticism of the GOP having deserted the conservative ideals domestically and internationally. Yikes, a part of me must be a marginalized Republican. ;-) What's nutty is Huckabee's plan for a national sales tax! Is he serious? Hey, let's have the most regressive tax system and be like Canada. Maybe he'll go for nationalized health care, too. Come on, Huckster, you can do it!
YHK: Man, I haven't heard "Big Tent" since the "kinder, gentler" days of HW, or was it Dubya's "compassionate conservative" days? Has he made good on the "compassionate" or the "conservative" part in the last 7+ years? Tragically for our nation and the world, he is well off that mark on which he ran in 2000.
> Happy prognosticating to all!
YHK: Hear, hear! That's what I'm talkin' about!
Cheers,
Young
----- Original Message -----
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:46 PM PST
Subject: Another Rant-And the flies continue to drop...
Hi all,
CNN is reporting that Ron Paul, in a series of newsletters, published in the 90's, rants against blacks and gays. He says things like, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
It's a hoot, check it out.
CNN Link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:54:44 -0800
Wasn't it Michael Moore that called Bill Clinton a Republican president in one of his recent books?
I'd also heard/read somewhere that Clinton sent more money to the military than Bush 41 did.
And doesn't it seem now like that economic boom in the 90s was a false one -- given the Enron/Tyco/Adelphia/Health South/others scandals that followed.
My stock portfolio in 2000 didn't look nearly as good as it did in 1999 -- and Clinton was still president. :)
Of course, the guy that really controls our economy's performance isn't the president (though the president can really screw up our budget by giving our surplus to rich people -- who so obviously deserve it because they're already rich people), it's the Fed Reserve Chairman. :)
---------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:53:24 -0800
From: yhkpenguin@yahoo.com
Well, now we're getting some juices flowing. :-) Actually, I think BGA was mostly tongue-in-cheek in his rant, but it managed to get a bit of a rant from BRM as well. Not exactly what I was going for with our continuing political dialogue, but I'll run with it. "YHK" comments to BRM's are below. I see now the evidence that yours and my comments below embodies the polarized opinions in American politics. I'll try my best to be civil but honest; I can't promise not to be sarcastic or a wise-ass, though. ;-)
> --- Brian Menard wrote:
> Brian:
> Sounds like you took your Bob Dole pill this morning, and I do NOT mean the one for which he does t.v. commercials.
> First, in the interest of full disclosure, my mother was a Goldwater Girl. Okay, in truth she did oppo at RNC headquarters on Capitol Hill (that's DC, not Seattle!) in 1964. But I enjoy razzing her about being a GG just to get her hack up. She can say she was doing substantive politics back when Hillary Rodham's involvement consisted of touting candidates and cocktail parties.
> Second, as to your suggestion that we consider Blow-Bill-Blow a Republican, let's not and say we didn't. Let me state in no uncertain terms: We don't want him.
YHK: I don't think anyone expects the Reps to take Bubba under their wing, now or ever. I doubt Bubba would like that, either.
> Just because he decided after two failed years as a left-wing president that the only way he could do anything competent in office was to jump on board the new GOP majority's agenda train, hijack it, and take credit for it from a media quite happy to give it to him instead of to the GOP Congress, doesn't mean he's one of us. Yick! Even the suggestion makes me want to shower and wash off the muck.
YHK: This comment is interesting. Pray tell, for what should the Newt/DeLay/Lott/Frist GOP Congress get credit, and what did Clinton "hijack" from the so-called Republican Revolution? The "Contract With (On) America"? The legislative gridlock? The budget deadlock shutting down the government? The impeachment proceedings that were a complete waste of the nation's time and money?
YHK: You must mean the economic boom of the 90's. George "I hate broccoli" "41" H.W. Bush didn't oversee it. Yeah, that was all Clinton's and Dems' doing w/o any Reps help. ;-) And that's the way it's gonna be sold to the public in this election because "43" Dubya did WAAAY worse than Bubba on the economic front, not to mention the myriad of other domestic blunders and scandals. I'm sure the Reps will be more than prepared to blame the Dem Congress, but the Republican Revolution lasted a good long 12 years, so the Dems must have ruined things all in the last year. Darn.
> What a shame that someone so brilliant can have a morality grounded solely in his own aggrandizement. A legacy of which to be proud. Okay, I go that out of my system. On to other things.
YHK: As I mentioned before, GOP is licking their chops to go after Hillary with the Clinton "legacy". Good Lord, how the Reps hate the Clintons! Don't people realize it was a "vast right-wing conspiracy"? ;-) How much you wanna bet that that'll get thrown in her face, if she's the nominee?
YHK: I still recall soon after 9/11 that some people dared to say that Dubya could be ranked among presidents like Lincoln and Washington. Sadly for all of us, Dubya has hit new presidential lows, and his regime is too current even to be referred to as a "legacy". It's more like a living "nightmare" from the Dems and Ron Paul's perspective, which segues me into...
> Third, did Bloomberg switch BACK to the Dems or did he just go independent? I think it was the latter, but I may misremember that.
YHK: This isn't the segue I meant, but does anyone Bloomin' care about Bloomburger? I don't, unless he does the Dems a favor like Perot the Hero. Those lucky-ass Clintons; that's why the Reps hate 'em so much...
> Finally, Ron Paul...Oh, Ron Paul. The best answer he gave in last night's debate was his response to the question that he might not really be a Republican. It was a very rational litany of historically based Republicanisms. Ron Paul is a very rational guy. Unfortunately for him, I think he's also nuts. The most rational process still goes awry when it starts from lunatic assumptions or seeks lunatic results. Please don't use ANYTHING he says/writes/does as representative of the rest of us in the GOP world. Big Tent has its advantages. Ron Paul, apparently, is one of its disadvantages.
YHK: BRM, why do you think Paul is nuts? Granted, "your" Congressman, the kooky Kucinich, publicly declared his belief in UFOs (still wouldn't call DK nuts, though), but I don't see why you label Paul as nuts. Okay, if this Ron Paul Political Report newsletter stuff is actual truth and can be proven as linked to him directly, then I'll call him nuts as well. Other than that I thought he outlined his "not one of the lemmings" Republican principles quite well ("rational litany of historically based Republicanisms") in the debates last night. [Lest you think I watched Fox, I caught the highlights on the Lehrer Newshour.] I didn't see anything nutty in his criticism of the GOP having deserted the conservative ideals domestically and internationally. Yikes, a part of me must be a marginalized Republican. ;-) What's nutty is Huckabee's plan for a national sales tax! Is he serious? Hey, let's have the most regressive tax system and be like Canada. Maybe he'll go for nationalized health care, too. Come on, Huckster, you can do it!
YHK: Man, I haven't heard "Big Tent" since the "kinder, gentler" days of HW, or was it Dubya's "compassionate conservative" days? Has he made good on the "compassionate" or the "conservative" part in the last 7+ years? Tragically for our nation and the world, he is well off that mark on which he ran in 2000.
> Happy prognosticating to all!
YHK: Hear, hear! That's what I'm talkin' about!
Cheers,
Young
----- Original Message -----
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:46 PM PST
Subject: Another Rant-And the flies continue to drop...
Hi all,
CNN is reporting that Ron Paul, in a series of newsletters, published in the 90's, rants against blacks and gays. He says things like, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
It's a hoot, check it out.
CNN Link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html
Well, another one soon to bite the dust, I guess. If the Republicans continue to do this poorly, they might have to start courting New York's mayor, Bloomberg. Oh, that's right, Bloomberg switched to the Democratic party.
Anyway, despair not. Twenty-six years of De facto Republican rule has been a pretty good run. We'll include NAFTA loving Clinton under the Republicans.
Who will be the first Democrat to really slip up? I hope Bill can keep his pants up just long enough...Actually, he is already screwing things up for Hillary undermining Barack, highlighting Obama's inexperience-As if, Hills former job consulting with the White House Executive Chef over the Christmas menu, or her inability to get a health care compromise, is experience enough. How many times did it take her to pass the NY bar exam anyway? Oh, yeah, that's right, she didn't. She had to go to Arkansas and test there, instead.
Oh well, life's a bitch when you describe yourself as a former Goldwater girl. At least she's trying to get to the top the old fashioned way, through marriage, money and connections.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Willard Mitt Romney
From:"Michael Busick"
Date:Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:35:28 -0800
Forgot to hit reply all. We should all enjoy this... http://snltranscripts.jt.org/87/87kdebate.phtml
Pat Schroeder: Gentlemen, please.. please, gentlemen. Let's now turn to Pete Dupont. Pete, you've been running on what you call "Damn Good Ideas", like privatizing Social Security. Um.. they didn't exactly catch on in Iowa. How exactly are the people of New Hampshire responding to your idea that teenagers should be tested for drugs before they can get a driver's license?
Pete Dupont: Well, they love it, Pat, they do. They understand that it's a damn good idea to link the privilege of driving with being drug-free. In fact, I've decided to expand the idea to Social Security. Now, I say tell our senior citizens, "You do drugs, you don't get your Social Security check." I mean, it's just that simple.
Bob Dole: Can I say something, Pat? I don't know what my good friend Pierre Dupont - and that's your name; come on, it's Pierre, not Pete, don't go around telling people your name's Pete when it's Pierre - PIerre, I don't know what you know about Social Security. I mean, Bob Dole didn't grow up with a 150-foot yacht, I didn't have the convertible for graduation, the sterling silver cocktail shaker, or the machine that tears the tennis balls at you..
George Bush: Now, wait a minute, wait a minute! Now, I'm getting sick of this! Why don't you pick on someone your own size! I'm not gonna let you pick on my friend, Pierre, here! Noew, come on, Bob! You're a millionaire, and I'm not sure all that money was made on the up-and-up!
Bob Dole: George, how would you like this pen stuck right in your neck?!
Pat Schroeder: Gentlemen, please..
George Bush: I'd like to see you try!
Bob Dole: I could take you with my one good arm, George Bush, and you know that! In a fair fight, you could use two!
--------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:10:26 -0500
I can see Dan Aykroyd doing Bob Dole, but can't recall if lambasting Pete du Pont was among the sketches I saw. In reality it was Bush that did it, but Aykroyd's vicious Dole would be better suited than Carvey's Bush to do it on SNL.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: Willard Mitt Romney :o)
Wasn't there an SNL sketch from 1988 about the whole Pierre/Pete thing? Was it Aykroyd as Dole who called out the guy playing DuPont for trying to Americanize his name? Those were the days for SNL back then.
------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:54:24 -0500
Brian:
Your reference to Mitt as Willard reminds me of the fall of 1987 GOP debate of 1988 contenders when Pete du Pont and George Herbert Walker Bush were both fighting to see who could dump the blue-blood label. GHWB was able to deflect that label to his opponent - who had spent his whole life being called "Pete" - with a well-timed answer to a candidate-to-candidate question from du Pont to Bush by saying, "Well, PIERRE, let me help you out." Pierre Samuel du Pont IV...not quite the name most Americans would figure belongs to their president. Pete's campaign died right then and there before even getting to 1988.
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:09 AM
Subject: Willard Mitt Romney :o)
Ahh, what a beautiful name, Willard Mitt Romney. Willard is Romney's given name.The look on his face, when he learns that $200,000,000 can't buy an election, priceless.B.
--------------
From:"Brian Adamson"
Subject:Willard
Date:Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:57:50 +0000
No my brother, actually Willard is Mitt Romney's first name. Gee, wonder why he doesn't go by Willard? Remember the made for t.v. movie where a boy by the name of Willard trains his rat buddies to kill for him?No, really, Willard is Mitts given name.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Young H. Kim"
I thought Obama stole the "Yes We Can" from Bob the Builder. ;-) If you know kids' TV shows, that's a funny joke. You're right, BGA, the "racial dynamic" comment came in reference to Cesar Chavez and upcoming Nevada and South Carolina races. Anyway, I thought it was kind of uncalled for, and the silly Nightline field reporter knew it as soon as it came out of his mouth because he made a weird face. If you missed it, you'll have to take my word for it; it was one of those live TV moments. Is Willard meant for Thompson? 'Cause he's Fred? Fred Willard? Funny.
---------------
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Subject: Re: New Hampshire Results
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:00:00 +0000
And how! Young, I agree with your stand on the media. I heard tonight that Obama got the post grad. over $100k a year income crowd, what? Look, let's focus on the good news. If Willard doesn't get Mich. he's out, whether he knows it, or not. Obama is getting some union support and Hillary might have to cry again, that certainly seemed to work with the women. It just pissed me off. Let's face it, Iowa and New Hampshire are weird states. I believe that Obama will get the Latino vote. His slogan, "Yes We Can" is union/Latino code, remember Chevez? Also, he just picked up the support of a major union in Nevada. Further, I expect that Clinton will lose the Black vote. I expect Obama will bring out the black vote in S. Carolina. What about Edwards? He will need to make up his mind soon, whether to stay in and sink Obama? Or get out and help him. I believe that Edwards is taking votes that would otherwise mostly go to Obama. McCain, comeback kid? My !4*&(7! More like, grandpa turned out the over 60 crowd. Nevertheless, McCain is looking strong and on message-I think, he has a better chance than any of the other Republicans. Can't wait for Super Tuesday. B.
Date:Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:35:28 -0800
Forgot to hit reply all. We should all enjoy this... http://snltranscripts.jt.org/87/87kdebate.phtml
Pat Schroeder: Gentlemen, please.. please, gentlemen. Let's now turn to Pete Dupont. Pete, you've been running on what you call "Damn Good Ideas", like privatizing Social Security. Um.. they didn't exactly catch on in Iowa. How exactly are the people of New Hampshire responding to your idea that teenagers should be tested for drugs before they can get a driver's license?
Pete Dupont: Well, they love it, Pat, they do. They understand that it's a damn good idea to link the privilege of driving with being drug-free. In fact, I've decided to expand the idea to Social Security. Now, I say tell our senior citizens, "You do drugs, you don't get your Social Security check." I mean, it's just that simple.
Bob Dole: Can I say something, Pat? I don't know what my good friend Pierre Dupont - and that's your name; come on, it's Pierre, not Pete, don't go around telling people your name's Pete when it's Pierre - PIerre, I don't know what you know about Social Security. I mean, Bob Dole didn't grow up with a 150-foot yacht, I didn't have the convertible for graduation, the sterling silver cocktail shaker, or the machine that tears the tennis balls at you..
George Bush: Now, wait a minute, wait a minute! Now, I'm getting sick of this! Why don't you pick on someone your own size! I'm not gonna let you pick on my friend, Pierre, here! Noew, come on, Bob! You're a millionaire, and I'm not sure all that money was made on the up-and-up!
Bob Dole: George, how would you like this pen stuck right in your neck?!
Pat Schroeder: Gentlemen, please..
George Bush: I'd like to see you try!
Bob Dole: I could take you with my one good arm, George Bush, and you know that! In a fair fight, you could use two!
--------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:10:26 -0500
I can see Dan Aykroyd doing Bob Dole, but can't recall if lambasting Pete du Pont was among the sketches I saw. In reality it was Bush that did it, but Aykroyd's vicious Dole would be better suited than Carvey's Bush to do it on SNL.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: Willard Mitt Romney :o)
Wasn't there an SNL sketch from 1988 about the whole Pierre/Pete thing? Was it Aykroyd as Dole who called out the guy playing DuPont for trying to Americanize his name? Those were the days for SNL back then.
------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:54:24 -0500
Brian:
Your reference to Mitt as Willard reminds me of the fall of 1987 GOP debate of 1988 contenders when Pete du Pont and George Herbert Walker Bush were both fighting to see who could dump the blue-blood label. GHWB was able to deflect that label to his opponent - who had spent his whole life being called "Pete" - with a well-timed answer to a candidate-to-candidate question from du Pont to Bush by saying, "Well, PIERRE, let me help you out." Pierre Samuel du Pont IV...not quite the name most Americans would figure belongs to their president. Pete's campaign died right then and there before even getting to 1988.
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:09 AM
Subject: Willard Mitt Romney :o)
Ahh, what a beautiful name, Willard Mitt Romney. Willard is Romney's given name.The look on his face, when he learns that $200,000,000 can't buy an election, priceless.B.
--------------
From:"Brian Adamson"
Subject:Willard
Date:Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:57:50 +0000
No my brother, actually Willard is Mitt Romney's first name. Gee, wonder why he doesn't go by Willard? Remember the made for t.v. movie where a boy by the name of Willard trains his rat buddies to kill for him?No, really, Willard is Mitts given name.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Young H. Kim"
I thought Obama stole the "Yes We Can" from Bob the Builder. ;-) If you know kids' TV shows, that's a funny joke. You're right, BGA, the "racial dynamic" comment came in reference to Cesar Chavez and upcoming Nevada and South Carolina races. Anyway, I thought it was kind of uncalled for, and the silly Nightline field reporter knew it as soon as it came out of his mouth because he made a weird face. If you missed it, you'll have to take my word for it; it was one of those live TV moments. Is Willard meant for Thompson? 'Cause he's Fred? Fred Willard? Funny.
---------------
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Subject: Re: New Hampshire Results
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:00:00 +0000
And how! Young, I agree with your stand on the media. I heard tonight that Obama got the post grad. over $100k a year income crowd, what? Look, let's focus on the good news. If Willard doesn't get Mich. he's out, whether he knows it, or not. Obama is getting some union support and Hillary might have to cry again, that certainly seemed to work with the women. It just pissed me off. Let's face it, Iowa and New Hampshire are weird states. I believe that Obama will get the Latino vote. His slogan, "Yes We Can" is union/Latino code, remember Chevez? Also, he just picked up the support of a major union in Nevada. Further, I expect that Clinton will lose the Black vote. I expect Obama will bring out the black vote in S. Carolina. What about Edwards? He will need to make up his mind soon, whether to stay in and sink Obama? Or get out and help him. I believe that Edwards is taking votes that would otherwise mostly go to Obama. McCain, comeback kid? My !4*&(7! More like, grandpa turned out the over 60 crowd. Nevertheless, McCain is looking strong and on message-I think, he has a better chance than any of the other Republicans. Can't wait for Super Tuesday. B.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
New Hampshire Results
From: "Brian Menard"
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:51:46 -0500
NH is now history (or herstory, depending on which party performance you're analyzing). On to MI, SC, and FL. The big Thompson news today is that FDT apparently wowed the SC GOP with his performance in last night's debate. From a political perspective, I'm thrilled that he's got something positive to keep his campaign going. As an analyst, I'm confused because I thought McCain gave the best answers and was the most "presidential" while Fred - as I commented to Audrey while we watched - had lots of good information delivered in really bad answers.
The other GOP news this morning is that Rudy (or "Rudi" as some localities in FL have printed his name on their ballots, and are refusing to correct it because it will cost them $40,000 to fix...Should we just exempt Florida from participating in presidential contests?) has asked his paid staff to work without pay and vendors to go without payment retroactive to January 1. I seem to recall writing something recently about Rudy/i being strapped for cash. I guess it's even more serious than I thought. He may not survive until the Florida contest that is supposed to launch his campaign. Bad plan for Rudy; good news for IA and NH.
Did you see the "Romney '08" baseball mitts hoisted at his HQ on the night of the NH primary? What would they hold up if he went by Willard? Anyway, MI is do or die for Mitt. Once his campaign dies there, he should hold off any endorsement to keep his VP chances alive with either McCain or Huckabee, whichever gets the nod. And on the subject of GOP-VP options, does anyone else join me in thinking one name that will get bantered around once there is a GOP nominee is Michael Steele? And on the Dem side, if Hillary ends up in the top slot, I still think there's a very good shot of having a Clinton-Obama ticket. Bill Richardson screwed himself out of VP contention with too many irrational proposals coming from someone whose long resume means he should know better. If Obama wins the nomination, Richardson is definitely out because Obama will choose a white man as his running mate (back to Indiana's Evan Bayh, whom I've mentioned previously).
-----------------
From:"Michael Busick"
Date:Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:29:03 -0800
It's still too early for me to over-analyze yet another example of how this country's media was wrong yet again. :)
------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:23:22 -0800
From: yhkpenguin@yahoo.com
I don't get to watch "24" regularly, but I got that reference. I am waiting for "Lost" to resume. Check it out, if you haven't. I started in the middle of things, and it was not that hard to follow. So, Richardson is officially out and available for running-mate duty. Obviously had no idea that Willard is Mitt's first name. Gee, Willard or Mitt, take your pick. Don't get what the tension between Kerry and Edwards would be, regardless of not being palsies. To be fair, Edwards does not have the overall party support, not to mention his showing in IA/NH, so it would seem unlikely for Kerry to endorse him. What, no more analysis and insight from my exclusive panel of three? ;-) NH wasn't all that thrilling?
----------------
From:"Michael Busick"
Date:Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:36:43 -0800
Of course, I just read a follow-up headline stating "Kerry snubs Edwards, endorses Obama" so I guess those media guys don't know that ex-running mates don't always have to get along, either :)
-------------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:12:54 -0500
When Edwards announced, he was asked if Kerry would endorse him. He said he did not expect Kerry to endorse him and did not know if he would bother seeking his endorsement. Just a bit of evidence that running mates need not be good chums...It's not just in "24".
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:10 PM
Subject: RE: New Hampshire Results
I just caught a headline on MSN this morning stating that Kerry is going to endorse Obama. Is that anything other than a shot at Edwards?
---------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:58:13 -0800
From: yhkpenguin@yahoo.com
I thought Obama stole the "Yes We Can" from Bob the Builder. ;-) If you know kids' TV shows, that's a funny joke. You're right, BGA, the "racial dynamic" comment came in reference to Cesar Chavez and upcoming Nevada and South Carolina races. Anyway, I thought it was kind of uncalled for, and the silly Nightline field reporter knew it as soon as it came out of his mouth because he made a weird face. If you missed it, you'll have to take my word for it; it was one of those live TV moments. Is Willard meant for Thompson? 'Cause he's Fred? Fred Willard? Funny.
---------------------
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:00:00 +0000
And how! Young, I agree with your stand on the media. I heard tonight that Obama got the post grad. over $100k a year income crowd, what? Look, let's focus on the good news. If Willard doesn't get Mich. he's out, whether he knows it, or not. Obama is getting some union support and Hillary might have to cry again, that certainly seemed to work with the women. It just pissed me off. Let's face it, Iowa and New Hampshire are weird states. I believe that Obama will get the Latino vote. His slogan, "Yes We Can" is union/Latino code, remember Chevez? Also, he just picked up the support of a major union in Nevada. Further, I expect that Clinton will lose the Black vote. I expect Obama will bring out the black vote in S. Carolina. What about Edwards? He will need to make up his mind soon, whether to stay in and sink Obama? Or get out and help him. I believe that Edwards is taking votes that would otherwise mostly go to Obama. McCain, comeback kid? My !4*&(7! More like, grandpa turned out the over 60 crowd. Nevertheless, McCain is looking strong and on message-I think, he has a better chance than any of the other Republicans. Can't wait for Super Tuesday. B.
------------------------
Date:Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:30:13 -0800 (PST)
From:"Young H. Kim"
I'll send the first salvo again...
First, let me say that the general assessment by the mainstream media on NH results was full of hot air, if not appalling. The numbers say:
1) Hillary won by 3% and garnered same number of delegates as Obama.
2) McCain won by 5% and got three more delegates than Romney.
On top of this, the articles and TV news buffoons are using terms such as "upset", "comeback kid", "shocking", "stunning", and such. I can somewhat accept the comeback aspect for McCain, but Hillary, too? One AP article headlined, "Obama front-runner label brief". Was he really the front-runner after only Iowa? It's amazing how Hillary lost the front-runner label so quickly.
Nightline's lead stooge Terry Moran called Hillary's win "shocking", and even good ol' George S. agreed. Ratings is one thing, but they are obviously being coached to make the race seem WAY more exciting than it really is, or they get bonuses by speaking more sensational words after another. Was it really a surprise to the Obama camp that he didn't finish first in NH? I wouldn't read this as a step back for Obama and still see Hillary as on the defensive.
Moran even dared to call Obama's mood as "cocky" after his win in Iowa. Ridiculous. One ABC reporter in the Obama camp used the term "racial dynamic" off-the-cuff (in reference to Obama focusing on Black and Latino votes in South Carolina and Florida) and gave a sheepish frown-grin hinting that he just had a brain fart. And these guys get paid for doing that. I don't subscribe to basic cable TV, so I don't know what other hyperbole got tossed around in the three-ring circus of CNN, MSNBC and Fox. I'll stick to PBS and NPR, thanks.
The Rep race seems wide open now and definitely a three-elephant race. Huckabee certainly will have problems getting the Northern Yankee votes. Is there still hope for Giuliani and others? What has Rudy got other than mentioning 9/11 every other sentence? And Paul was close behind Rudy as well and ahead of write-ins and Thompson. Does Thompson keep going?
Heard that the traditional NH Dem voters went with Hillary, and the independents went with Obama. Doesn't this mean that Obama has a better chance of grabbing the center and moderates? Is an Obama/Clinton or a Clinton/Obama ticket possible?
Michigan's a bigger chunk of the delegate pie and Florida coming up later, so it should continue to be quite fascinating.
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:51:46 -0500
NH is now history (or herstory, depending on which party performance you're analyzing). On to MI, SC, and FL. The big Thompson news today is that FDT apparently wowed the SC GOP with his performance in last night's debate. From a political perspective, I'm thrilled that he's got something positive to keep his campaign going. As an analyst, I'm confused because I thought McCain gave the best answers and was the most "presidential" while Fred - as I commented to Audrey while we watched - had lots of good information delivered in really bad answers.
The other GOP news this morning is that Rudy (or "Rudi" as some localities in FL have printed his name on their ballots, and are refusing to correct it because it will cost them $40,000 to fix...Should we just exempt Florida from participating in presidential contests?) has asked his paid staff to work without pay and vendors to go without payment retroactive to January 1. I seem to recall writing something recently about Rudy/i being strapped for cash. I guess it's even more serious than I thought. He may not survive until the Florida contest that is supposed to launch his campaign. Bad plan for Rudy; good news for IA and NH.
Did you see the "Romney '08" baseball mitts hoisted at his HQ on the night of the NH primary? What would they hold up if he went by Willard? Anyway, MI is do or die for Mitt. Once his campaign dies there, he should hold off any endorsement to keep his VP chances alive with either McCain or Huckabee, whichever gets the nod. And on the subject of GOP-VP options, does anyone else join me in thinking one name that will get bantered around once there is a GOP nominee is Michael Steele? And on the Dem side, if Hillary ends up in the top slot, I still think there's a very good shot of having a Clinton-Obama ticket. Bill Richardson screwed himself out of VP contention with too many irrational proposals coming from someone whose long resume means he should know better. If Obama wins the nomination, Richardson is definitely out because Obama will choose a white man as his running mate (back to Indiana's Evan Bayh, whom I've mentioned previously).
-----------------
From:"Michael Busick"
Date:Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:29:03 -0800
It's still too early for me to over-analyze yet another example of how this country's media was wrong yet again. :)
------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:23:22 -0800
From: yhkpenguin@yahoo.com
I don't get to watch "24" regularly, but I got that reference. I am waiting for "Lost" to resume. Check it out, if you haven't. I started in the middle of things, and it was not that hard to follow. So, Richardson is officially out and available for running-mate duty. Obviously had no idea that Willard is Mitt's first name. Gee, Willard or Mitt, take your pick. Don't get what the tension between Kerry and Edwards would be, regardless of not being palsies. To be fair, Edwards does not have the overall party support, not to mention his showing in IA/NH, so it would seem unlikely for Kerry to endorse him. What, no more analysis and insight from my exclusive panel of three? ;-) NH wasn't all that thrilling?
----------------
From:"Michael Busick"
Date:Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:36:43 -0800
Of course, I just read a follow-up headline stating "Kerry snubs Edwards, endorses Obama" so I guess those media guys don't know that ex-running mates don't always have to get along, either :)
-------------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:12:54 -0500
When Edwards announced, he was asked if Kerry would endorse him. He said he did not expect Kerry to endorse him and did not know if he would bother seeking his endorsement. Just a bit of evidence that running mates need not be good chums...It's not just in "24".
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:10 PM
Subject: RE: New Hampshire Results
I just caught a headline on MSN this morning stating that Kerry is going to endorse Obama. Is that anything other than a shot at Edwards?
---------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:58:13 -0800
From: yhkpenguin@yahoo.com
I thought Obama stole the "Yes We Can" from Bob the Builder. ;-) If you know kids' TV shows, that's a funny joke. You're right, BGA, the "racial dynamic" comment came in reference to Cesar Chavez and upcoming Nevada and South Carolina races. Anyway, I thought it was kind of uncalled for, and the silly Nightline field reporter knew it as soon as it came out of his mouth because he made a weird face. If you missed it, you'll have to take my word for it; it was one of those live TV moments. Is Willard meant for Thompson? 'Cause he's Fred? Fred Willard? Funny.
---------------------
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:00:00 +0000
And how! Young, I agree with your stand on the media. I heard tonight that Obama got the post grad. over $100k a year income crowd, what? Look, let's focus on the good news. If Willard doesn't get Mich. he's out, whether he knows it, or not. Obama is getting some union support and Hillary might have to cry again, that certainly seemed to work with the women. It just pissed me off. Let's face it, Iowa and New Hampshire are weird states. I believe that Obama will get the Latino vote. His slogan, "Yes We Can" is union/Latino code, remember Chevez? Also, he just picked up the support of a major union in Nevada. Further, I expect that Clinton will lose the Black vote. I expect Obama will bring out the black vote in S. Carolina. What about Edwards? He will need to make up his mind soon, whether to stay in and sink Obama? Or get out and help him. I believe that Edwards is taking votes that would otherwise mostly go to Obama. McCain, comeback kid? My !4*&(7! More like, grandpa turned out the over 60 crowd. Nevertheless, McCain is looking strong and on message-I think, he has a better chance than any of the other Republicans. Can't wait for Super Tuesday. B.
------------------------
Date:Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:30:13 -0800 (PST)
From:"Young H. Kim"
I'll send the first salvo again...
First, let me say that the general assessment by the mainstream media on NH results was full of hot air, if not appalling. The numbers say:
1) Hillary won by 3% and garnered same number of delegates as Obama.
2) McCain won by 5% and got three more delegates than Romney.
On top of this, the articles and TV news buffoons are using terms such as "upset", "comeback kid", "shocking", "stunning", and such. I can somewhat accept the comeback aspect for McCain, but Hillary, too? One AP article headlined, "Obama front-runner label brief". Was he really the front-runner after only Iowa? It's amazing how Hillary lost the front-runner label so quickly.
Nightline's lead stooge Terry Moran called Hillary's win "shocking", and even good ol' George S. agreed. Ratings is one thing, but they are obviously being coached to make the race seem WAY more exciting than it really is, or they get bonuses by speaking more sensational words after another. Was it really a surprise to the Obama camp that he didn't finish first in NH? I wouldn't read this as a step back for Obama and still see Hillary as on the defensive.
Moran even dared to call Obama's mood as "cocky" after his win in Iowa. Ridiculous. One ABC reporter in the Obama camp used the term "racial dynamic" off-the-cuff (in reference to Obama focusing on Black and Latino votes in South Carolina and Florida) and gave a sheepish frown-grin hinting that he just had a brain fart. And these guys get paid for doing that. I don't subscribe to basic cable TV, so I don't know what other hyperbole got tossed around in the three-ring circus of CNN, MSNBC and Fox. I'll stick to PBS and NPR, thanks.
The Rep race seems wide open now and definitely a three-elephant race. Huckabee certainly will have problems getting the Northern Yankee votes. Is there still hope for Giuliani and others? What has Rudy got other than mentioning 9/11 every other sentence? And Paul was close behind Rudy as well and ahead of write-ins and Thompson. Does Thompson keep going?
Heard that the traditional NH Dem voters went with Hillary, and the independents went with Obama. Doesn't this mean that Obama has a better chance of grabbing the center and moderates? Is an Obama/Clinton or a Clinton/Obama ticket possible?
Michigan's a bigger chunk of the delegate pie and Florida coming up later, so it should continue to be quite fascinating.
Monday, January 7, 2008
NH Debates and the status quo
From:"Michael Busick"
Subject:RE: NH Debate and the status quo
Date:Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:21:23 -0800
...but I'd heard that FOX News viewership was down since 2004. Is that not true? How many people are left watching FOX News that care which Democrats set themselves up for FOX News interviews? :) Has Romney been on the Daily Show recently? That may help him down the road. :)
--------------------
Date:Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:01:53 -0800 (PST)
From:"Young H. Kim"
Subject:Re: NH Debate and the status quo
Aww, BRM, you beat me to the punch(line) on the Kucinich connection and you. Iwould have to agree that any candidate should be willing to present his/her case onFox "News", even if it meant trashing the people and the organization thatbroadcasts it.Caught Kucinich and Ron Paul on Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS last Friday. I respectboth of them for fighting the good fight. And I agree with DK on media reform anduniversal health care. Paul had great points on campaign reform and Internetneutrality. Fox managed to keep Paul off of their debate, so there seems to beplenty of excluding going on, whether by the candidates or the networks. Perhapsthe Dems should speak on behalf of Paul, then Fox will stop inviting them.And I'd rather not get into how many votes Dubya "lost" or actually got. :-)
-----------------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: NH Debate and the status quo
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:27:31 -0500
Okay, here's the big joke of the day. I, your humble token Republican member of this dialogue, reside in noen other than the congressional district of....(drum roll please, Young)...DENNIS KUCINICH!!! BTW, I think Dennis - much to his credit...and there isn't a lot of credit I offer to him - is the only Democratic candidate who has been willing to accept invitations from Fox News to appear on its shows. If whomever the ultimate nominee is doesn't change that practice soon, they better be willing to kiss goodbye more votes than George W. Bush lost by skipping the NAACP conventions.
----- Original Message -----
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:07 AM
Subject: NH Debate and the status quo
Hi all,Enjoying the conversation...Perhaps all the debates, our machinations included, underscore the reality that only a white southern male can really win this thing. No presidential nominee can win an election without taking the south. Does anyone believe that Hillary or Obama can win the south?A woman, a black, a mormon, come on... American isn't that progressive? Also, I'm afraid the dirt has not yet begun to fly. Fox had a third of the nation convinced that Obama was really a muslim. Our so-called "liberal media" is firmly in the hands of big money interests that can frame the debate in ways that are beneficial to the status quo. Did anyone notice that Kucinich was absent from the New Hampshire debate? Dennis argued that, it was his opposition to medical insurance, and his support for a single payer health care system that ultimately led him to being shut out of the NH debate, rather than the arbitrary criteria that the ABC network came up with.Of course, well spoken as he may be, Dennis comes off as a bit of a nut; Nevertheless, the Democratic debate in New Hampshire was noticeably bland without him. At least, the Republicans had Ron Paul to deal with.If I were going to place money on NH, I would bet on Clinton at this point. Any takers?Also, I believe that Huckabee can win this thing, completely. I don't subscribe to the belief that his appeal is only to Evangelical Christians. Lastly, any successful presidential nominee will have to focus on the economy this time around. The economy, not the wars and terrorism, will prove to be the biggest story and concern of voters in 2008. Check out the markets and dollar, cause we're in for a helluva ride. B.
Subject:RE: NH Debate and the status quo
Date:Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:21:23 -0800
...but I'd heard that FOX News viewership was down since 2004. Is that not true? How many people are left watching FOX News that care which Democrats set themselves up for FOX News interviews? :) Has Romney been on the Daily Show recently? That may help him down the road. :)
--------------------
Date:Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:01:53 -0800 (PST)
From:"Young H. Kim"
Subject:Re: NH Debate and the status quo
Aww, BRM, you beat me to the punch(line) on the Kucinich connection and you. Iwould have to agree that any candidate should be willing to present his/her case onFox "News", even if it meant trashing the people and the organization thatbroadcasts it.Caught Kucinich and Ron Paul on Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS last Friday. I respectboth of them for fighting the good fight. And I agree with DK on media reform anduniversal health care. Paul had great points on campaign reform and Internetneutrality. Fox managed to keep Paul off of their debate, so there seems to beplenty of excluding going on, whether by the candidates or the networks. Perhapsthe Dems should speak on behalf of Paul, then Fox will stop inviting them.And I'd rather not get into how many votes Dubya "lost" or actually got. :-)
-----------------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: NH Debate and the status quo
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:27:31 -0500
Okay, here's the big joke of the day. I, your humble token Republican member of this dialogue, reside in noen other than the congressional district of....(drum roll please, Young)...DENNIS KUCINICH!!! BTW, I think Dennis - much to his credit...and there isn't a lot of credit I offer to him - is the only Democratic candidate who has been willing to accept invitations from Fox News to appear on its shows. If whomever the ultimate nominee is doesn't change that practice soon, they better be willing to kiss goodbye more votes than George W. Bush lost by skipping the NAACP conventions.
----- Original Message -----
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:07 AM
Subject: NH Debate and the status quo
Hi all,Enjoying the conversation...Perhaps all the debates, our machinations included, underscore the reality that only a white southern male can really win this thing. No presidential nominee can win an election without taking the south. Does anyone believe that Hillary or Obama can win the south?A woman, a black, a mormon, come on... American isn't that progressive? Also, I'm afraid the dirt has not yet begun to fly. Fox had a third of the nation convinced that Obama was really a muslim. Our so-called "liberal media" is firmly in the hands of big money interests that can frame the debate in ways that are beneficial to the status quo. Did anyone notice that Kucinich was absent from the New Hampshire debate? Dennis argued that, it was his opposition to medical insurance, and his support for a single payer health care system that ultimately led him to being shut out of the NH debate, rather than the arbitrary criteria that the ABC network came up with.Of course, well spoken as he may be, Dennis comes off as a bit of a nut; Nevertheless, the Democratic debate in New Hampshire was noticeably bland without him. At least, the Republicans had Ron Paul to deal with.If I were going to place money on NH, I would bet on Clinton at this point. Any takers?Also, I believe that Huckabee can win this thing, completely. I don't subscribe to the belief that his appeal is only to Evangelical Christians. Lastly, any successful presidential nominee will have to focus on the economy this time around. The economy, not the wars and terrorism, will prove to be the biggest story and concern of voters in 2008. Check out the markets and dollar, cause we're in for a helluva ride. B.
NH Debates, etc.
[Note: This thread goes in chronological order.]
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:46 AM
Pardon the length, but I feel you're into this as much as I am...
I missed the Repub debates because the Jaguars/Steelers game was much moreinteresting. ;-) Plus, I hope that the GOP end up with a long drawn-out war ofattrition for the party nomination.
Hillary, I must admit, sounds intelligent and more than capable at the debates, buther angry, dark side just does not help her image at all. Just saw that one NH pollshows a two-person race of Obama-Hillary as 1-2, Edwards a distant 3rd. Edwardssounded way too sound-bitey and wrapped up in personal outrage, IMO, but at leastyou know where he stands. I certainly don't expect him to make it through theprimaries, but he's the only one who's gonna keep Obama and Hillary in check (Iprefer to call her by her first name because Clinton means "Bill" to me, and thatname judges her unfairly--more to come). As for not putting the losing VP from theprevious ticket on the new ticket, probably true by CW, but a losing VP candidatecertainly isn't discouraged from running for prez in the future. And it is not atall likely that Hillary would accept a VP nod.
Here's why I don't think Hillary is "electable", that nebulous and mercurial butcritical factor that can swing many voters. The following are my observations ofthe electorate, not necessarily my personal opinion of Hillary:
1) Given the voter sentiments of 2000 and '04, half of the country hate gays, areanti-abortion and love guns. How does a woman like Hillary fit in to that worldview? Not well, if at all.
2) Unfortunately for Hillary, with all of her talents and abilities, she must carry
the Clinton baggage, more like dragging a ball and chain. I am sure the Republicansare chomping at the bits for Hillary to get the nomination. Do you think theextreme wing of GOP supporters will hesitate at all to dredge up the Clinton years,Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's failed attempt to reform health care, etc.? They willmost certainly succeed in painting her as a bleeding-heart liberal. Some people have forgotten what a lightening rod Billary was for conservative scorn and vitriol.
3) The only way Hillary could hope to win is to succeed becoming the theme of thiselection, "the agent of change". However, who is most identified with that monikerand distinction so far, at least among the Democrats? Obama. Should she manage tofight off Obama, will she get the young and independent votes who are currentlybacking Obama? I certainly hope so, if we are to avoid yet another four years of aRepublican administration. However, I feel it's an uphill battle for the Clintonname to get the "agent of change" title because they had already been there for twoterms.
I, too, am encouraged by the young and "first timer" participation in Iowa. Thisdefinitely serves to benefit Obama and the Dems most. He is looking more and moreelectable, day by day. I also feel that the country may be more prepared for Blackmale president than a White female one. One case in point, think of the supportthat Colin Powell would have garnered had he chose to run.
Still not sure how effectively Obama can win the center of the electorate. As Ilearned many years ago in a UW poli-sci course on U.S. Elections, all elections comedown to the battle for the center, after solidifying one's base, left or right. Ibelieve Obama's weakness is his lack of experience as an executive leader, which maynot sit well with moderate voters. I accept the opinion that governors are moreidentified as being presidential by voters than senators. By my count the lastsenator who won a presidential election is LBJ, and even he was a VP first. Thatmakes JFK the last president who was not a governor or VP first. Heady odds forsure.
I certainly am going to enjoy this election cycle. Definitely going to participate in the Dem caucus here and in the primary, of course. Thanks for reading.
Young
----------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:14:11 -0500
Not only was JFK the most recent candidate to go directly from Senate to White House, but throughout the history of presidential elections, only a couple senators have been elected President of the United States from their senate seats. "Heady odds for sure" is an understatement! And yet, each election cycle we see a myriad of senators contemplate it and at least a handful give it a shot. One thought on Obama and the center: Obama will have trouble catching the center not because he is a senator, but because his proposals are way left of center. I followed him very closely from September '06 through his formal announcement, waiting to see if the details he professed would follow his rhetoric about coming together. Once he started filling in the blanks last January, though, it was quickly apparent that folks on my side would interpret his rhetoric as just that and nothing more, for the policy proposals that followed the talk about folks coming together to solve the nation's problems carried the implicit message, "If only the Republicans and conservatives would stop getting in the way of our proposals and join our effort to make policy the way we think it should be made, all would be well." That's not any more sincere call for people working together than if Duncan Hunter made the same suggestion from the right wing. You make good points about Hillary and electability (or unelectability). However, you leave out one factor that improves her chances considerably, anamely, if the GOP nominate a bad candidate and/or far right candidate. Hillary has high negatives that are solid. She won't win these folks over no matter what. But she also can appeal to the center - as you rightly point out, the real battle ground in this year's fight - much better than either Obama or Edwards can do. She ran a risk-reward campaign, banking on her viability (ability to be nominated, as opposed to electability in the general election) and maintaining a more moderate political persona that would leave less ideological ground to make up come general election time to get back to the center. A sound strategy, but unfortunately for her, it appears her presumption of viability may have been premature.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:17 AM
I'm also thinking the GOP can't wait for Hillary to get the nomination because then they could also hammer the point that Hillary voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Anything she tries to say about US getting out of Iraq is going to be labeled as "flip-flopping" and I think we all remember how that played out in 2004.
--------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:21:26 -0500
A little secret from the GOP world: as much as folks are chomping at the bit to unleash on Hillary, people are REALLY looking forward to letting loose on Obama if he gets the nod from the Dems. The Hillary assault would be more personal than political (exempting things like the 90s health care stuff) and is not new, just juicy. Attacking Obama, on the other hand, gives the GOP spinsters the chance to Dukakisize him. The lesson on 1988 was "Define your opponent before s/he defines her/himself." In some ways, Obama is like the Gary Hart of 2008, known superficially but not in detail. Folks on the right can't wait to get started defining what "Change" would really mean in an Obama White House.
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:46 AM
Pardon the length, but I feel you're into this as much as I am...
I missed the Repub debates because the Jaguars/Steelers game was much moreinteresting. ;-) Plus, I hope that the GOP end up with a long drawn-out war ofattrition for the party nomination.
Hillary, I must admit, sounds intelligent and more than capable at the debates, buther angry, dark side just does not help her image at all. Just saw that one NH pollshows a two-person race of Obama-Hillary as 1-2, Edwards a distant 3rd. Edwardssounded way too sound-bitey and wrapped up in personal outrage, IMO, but at leastyou know where he stands. I certainly don't expect him to make it through theprimaries, but he's the only one who's gonna keep Obama and Hillary in check (Iprefer to call her by her first name because Clinton means "Bill" to me, and thatname judges her unfairly--more to come). As for not putting the losing VP from theprevious ticket on the new ticket, probably true by CW, but a losing VP candidatecertainly isn't discouraged from running for prez in the future. And it is not atall likely that Hillary would accept a VP nod.
Here's why I don't think Hillary is "electable", that nebulous and mercurial butcritical factor that can swing many voters. The following are my observations ofthe electorate, not necessarily my personal opinion of Hillary:
1) Given the voter sentiments of 2000 and '04, half of the country hate gays, areanti-abortion and love guns. How does a woman like Hillary fit in to that worldview? Not well, if at all.
2) Unfortunately for Hillary, with all of her talents and abilities, she must carry
the Clinton baggage, more like dragging a ball and chain. I am sure the Republicansare chomping at the bits for Hillary to get the nomination. Do you think theextreme wing of GOP supporters will hesitate at all to dredge up the Clinton years,Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's failed attempt to reform health care, etc.? They willmost certainly succeed in painting her as a bleeding-heart liberal. Some people have forgotten what a lightening rod Billary was for conservative scorn and vitriol.
3) The only way Hillary could hope to win is to succeed becoming the theme of thiselection, "the agent of change". However, who is most identified with that monikerand distinction so far, at least among the Democrats? Obama. Should she manage tofight off Obama, will she get the young and independent votes who are currentlybacking Obama? I certainly hope so, if we are to avoid yet another four years of aRepublican administration. However, I feel it's an uphill battle for the Clintonname to get the "agent of change" title because they had already been there for twoterms.
I, too, am encouraged by the young and "first timer" participation in Iowa. Thisdefinitely serves to benefit Obama and the Dems most. He is looking more and moreelectable, day by day. I also feel that the country may be more prepared for Blackmale president than a White female one. One case in point, think of the supportthat Colin Powell would have garnered had he chose to run.
Still not sure how effectively Obama can win the center of the electorate. As Ilearned many years ago in a UW poli-sci course on U.S. Elections, all elections comedown to the battle for the center, after solidifying one's base, left or right. Ibelieve Obama's weakness is his lack of experience as an executive leader, which maynot sit well with moderate voters. I accept the opinion that governors are moreidentified as being presidential by voters than senators. By my count the lastsenator who won a presidential election is LBJ, and even he was a VP first. Thatmakes JFK the last president who was not a governor or VP first. Heady odds forsure.
I certainly am going to enjoy this election cycle. Definitely going to participate in the Dem caucus here and in the primary, of course. Thanks for reading.
Young
----------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:14:11 -0500
Not only was JFK the most recent candidate to go directly from Senate to White House, but throughout the history of presidential elections, only a couple senators have been elected President of the United States from their senate seats. "Heady odds for sure" is an understatement! And yet, each election cycle we see a myriad of senators contemplate it and at least a handful give it a shot. One thought on Obama and the center: Obama will have trouble catching the center not because he is a senator, but because his proposals are way left of center. I followed him very closely from September '06 through his formal announcement, waiting to see if the details he professed would follow his rhetoric about coming together. Once he started filling in the blanks last January, though, it was quickly apparent that folks on my side would interpret his rhetoric as just that and nothing more, for the policy proposals that followed the talk about folks coming together to solve the nation's problems carried the implicit message, "If only the Republicans and conservatives would stop getting in the way of our proposals and join our effort to make policy the way we think it should be made, all would be well." That's not any more sincere call for people working together than if Duncan Hunter made the same suggestion from the right wing. You make good points about Hillary and electability (or unelectability). However, you leave out one factor that improves her chances considerably, anamely, if the GOP nominate a bad candidate and/or far right candidate. Hillary has high negatives that are solid. She won't win these folks over no matter what. But she also can appeal to the center - as you rightly point out, the real battle ground in this year's fight - much better than either Obama or Edwards can do. She ran a risk-reward campaign, banking on her viability (ability to be nominated, as opposed to electability in the general election) and maintaining a more moderate political persona that would leave less ideological ground to make up come general election time to get back to the center. A sound strategy, but unfortunately for her, it appears her presumption of viability may have been premature.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:17 AM
I'm also thinking the GOP can't wait for Hillary to get the nomination because then they could also hammer the point that Hillary voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Anything she tries to say about US getting out of Iraq is going to be labeled as "flip-flopping" and I think we all remember how that played out in 2004.
--------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:21:26 -0500
A little secret from the GOP world: as much as folks are chomping at the bit to unleash on Hillary, people are REALLY looking forward to letting loose on Obama if he gets the nod from the Dems. The Hillary assault would be more personal than political (exempting things like the 90s health care stuff) and is not new, just juicy. Attacking Obama, on the other hand, gives the GOP spinsters the chance to Dukakisize him. The lesson on 1988 was "Define your opponent before s/he defines her/himself." In some ways, Obama is like the Gary Hart of 2008, known superficially but not in detail. Folks on the right can't wait to get started defining what "Change" would really mean in an Obama White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)