Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Okay, Democrats, I'm here to help

0 helpful
168 replies

by maxwell edison

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

The best thing you Democrats could do for yourselves (and for the country) is to nominate Joe Lieberman for your party's run for the White House in 2008. The worst thing you can do is to NOT nominate him. But you'll probably shoot yourselves in the foot again (and ignore what's best for the country) and nominate the likes of Kerry, Gore or Clinton. I'm telling you, if you nominate Lieberman, the White House will probably be yours! Trust me, I know these things.

(Don't ask me why I'm helping you guys. It's probably because you won't listen to me anyway!)

168 replies

by faradhi

the Republicans run a McCain/Giuliani ticket, the White House will the theirs no matter who the Democrats run.

You are correct that the best candidate that the Democrats have is Lieberman. However, I do not know if Lieberman is going to run. He is running for re-election this year for the Senate. Being so close to the presidental election, Why spend the war chest on the Senate.

Additionally, if any of the three that you mentioned actually wins the nomination, then many moderate democrats will be voting republican no matter who is running.

If McCain gets the republican nomination, then even if Lieberman runs I personally will vote republican. Apparently I am not alone.
Check out this site http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc

What I find most fascinating is that there is one question [i]"In general, would you rather see a Republican or a Democrat elected as our next president in 2008?"[/i] The results show Democrats in a strong majority. However when placed head to head, The only republicans that are shown losing is Jeb Bush and Rice (they are not likely to run). Rice still beats some. Both McCain and Giuliani show leads (Giuliani's are slight).

The reason is that the Democratic Party is still not putting up nominees for which moderates like myself will vote. The nominees have to appeal to the far left to get nominated.

One day, maybe just maybe, the moderates can take the democratic party back.

by maxwell edison

Don't tell anyone, but I suggested that Joe Lieberman would win if he was nominated, but he won't. Rudy Giuliani will actually win -- and it won't be as second banana to John McCain. John McCain is too old with too much baggage, and too many Republicans just don't like him; he simply can't win enough primaries, and I doubt he will even run. (He might test the waters in Iowa and New Hampshire, but not much more.) Rudy, America's Mayor will be elevated to America's President in January, 2009.

Of ALL the Democrats wasting ... I mean breathing our air, I like Joe Lieberman the most, so I'll pump him up all I can. (Thus my message -- but just between you and me, remember.)

Why will Rudy run and win? Leadership. He's both a proven leader, and he will run on a leadership theme. No one can articulate the virtues and qualities of a leader better than Rudy, and the voters are thirsty for one. Moreover, of all the Republican potentials, Rudy is probably the most "hands-off" as far as personal attacks, although the Democrats will try, as that is their forte'.

Rudy versus Joe would be my dream match (as Joe is palatable to me), but I won't give the Democrats enough credit for being that smart.

You heard it here first (and I predicted the same thing about a year ago), Rudy Giuliani will win the next presidential election, not with an "issues" campaign, but with a leadership campaign. (Maybe I should send him a letter, and offer to be one of his campaign speech writers! Is that a little too presumptuous on my part?)

by tig2

Max, I hope that you are correct on this one. Joe Lieberman IS palatable but Rudy would be a great president.

I agree- there is a feeling that there is no leadership and has been no leadership for some time. I personally would like to see a president that embodies the principles that USED to be America.

I shudder to think that Hilary would win. Hopefully she doesn't even make the run. I had wondered if Edwards would run again- I think that he could potentially show well.

Hmm. Time to pull out my copy of "Leadership" and reread it. And hope.

Edited for typo

by j.lupo

Rudy would make a good president up to a point. Yes he has leadership and that is certainly what we need in this country. But I would be interested in seeing Ed Rendell (darn i can't spell, hate that) run. I think he could do a good job given the congressional situation with republicans in the majority in both houses.

Rendell was elected as Gov of PA with a big division between eastern and western PA. He basically belonged to the minority group in Harrisburg, yet he has one them over and has done a good job. I won't say a great job. Personally, even though he is funny on the football post-game, he needs to spend more time doing his job.

But overall I think he has done a great job and has the leadership to deal with bi-partisanship (sp?)

by oz_media

Giuliani would most likely see me supportng a republican administration. It would almost be worth border hopping, getting citizenship, voting and pissing off again. :)

by too old for it

After all, she is the most intelligent and best educated of the bunch ...

Nevermind, think I answered my own question.

by faradhi

The republican party still gets a large number of supporters from the south. There are still strong undercurrents of racism in the south. (Although, this undercurrent is not limited to the republicans.) It was one of the things that shocked me when we moved here.

Additionally, Rice is a woman. While the glass ceiling has a few cracks, it is still there.

by shamusoneil06

Not saying that I like anyone running for President, but hey... I'd still take a chimpanzee over Hilary.

by nicknielsen

Now that I think on it, a Giuliani-Powell ticket would be tolerable. I could actually vote for that one instead of writing in. Unfortunately, we'll probably get the usual "this is a choice?" candidates because of the more radical inclinations of primary voters. I don't think Giuliani will get the Republican nomination, nor do I think Lieberman has a chance on the Democratic side.

Actually, Max, based on many of your previous posts, I had thought you above party affiliations. Neither major party even approaches Libertarian ideals in their basic beliefs.

by yobtaf

Powell is a great man and knows world politics.
He was one of the few people in the early administration who
opposed the war in Iraq. But in an administration where
opposing opinions are not tolerated' he had to resign. He was
also personally ashamed for having to lie in person to the UN.
(see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/)

I do not support anything that the Republicans are promoting,
but if we have to have another Republican president, he
probably has more integrity then he rest of the possible
candidates. McCain used to be his own man but has chosen to
sell out to the religious right for political reasons.

The only problem I have with Powell is that he has chosen to
keep his mouth shut about his disagreements with the Chaney,
Rumsfeld, Bush administration.

I can't support him until he speaks up.

And yes I'm a little left of center, but much closer to center than
the administration or most of Congress, for that matter.

by nicknielsen

One of the prime tenets of military leadership, from the squad level up, is to voice your disagreement when appropriate, then carry out the resulting orders without further public discussion. This training and mindset carries over after retirement.

Powell voiced his disagreement, then carried out his orders. His current silence is due to his integrity.

by plusaf

he's not a libertarian, big or little L...

i heard him speak twice in person at the Foothill College Speaker's Series in Cupertino, CA, some years ago.

the first time, he sounded a lot like a libertarian and said "all the right things" that would have gotten my vote. i was psyched. i'd have supported him, given him money!

then, just a year or so later, he sounded just like a democrat. ready to solve the US' problems with programs run by the fracking gummint. one leg must have broken, because he just toppled to the left. lost my vote and support right there.

and i'm a REGISTERED Libertarian.

we've got no one to vote for because the two major parties pass laws and restrictions to keep "third parties" down and out of the running, and the way the country is running now [did you see Stephanopoulis' 20/20 a week or so ago?] polarization is driving the country into a pure, bimodal distribution.

a good solution might be a balanced approach, but you'll never see a middle-of-the-road "balanced" candidate win, let alone a "keep out of my wallet AND my bedroom" Libertarian.

the hate-mongers and the media will never allow it.

i promise you that, and that's from only my personal 60+ years of observation.

:)

by fxef

If you really want to help this great nation, vote Democrat. It doesn't matter who, the Republicans are killing this country, at least the average citizen. Big business is the only thing that Republicans care about.

by wizardb9

Another president with the ethics of a dog in heat that's what the US needs.At least with Bush you have a man who stands by his convictions and doesn't just toss them aside whenever a blow job is offered.Every democat that has ever been in office with the exception of Jimmy Carter has been a gutter snipe.
Just my prospective from Canada

by yobtaf

How can a Canadian comment when you elected the guy you did
(whatever his name is).

In the US the gap between the rich and the middle class has
become too wide and getting wider everyday. All the laws favors
large corporations and very wealthy. We are bombarded by the
most efficient spin machine in history (people don't even know
what to believe any more).

If you believe that this administration has any integrity take a
look at this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
darkside/

RXEF is right we have only one alternative to stop the direction
the US is headed in (Bush himself said that the jury was still out
evolution, can you believe that?) and that is, for better or worst,
The Democrats.

I just wish they had a better choice of possible presidential
candidates.

by nicknielsen

Anybody who didn't know Bill Clinton couldn't keep himself in his pants before the 1992 elections hadn't been paying attention. Then we elected him again because he actually reduced the national debt relative to the Gross Domestic Product (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html) and the economy boomed.

As for our currrent President, he has not yet managed to allow himself to be confused by facts. He has managed to eliminate the economic gains, while at the same time making sure that the richest 1% of Americans get to keep more of their money.

Both have problems, but apparently bad sexual ethics make you a worse person than starting a war over WMDs despite a lack of proof and solid evidence to the contrary. I don't see a difference.

by revcacher

Yes, Clinton got a BJ while in office and was impeached for it. Not ethical, but no one died.

Buch ignored intelligence, including a briefing entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Attack Inside the US" resulting in over 2900 American deaths.

Anyone who is objectively looking at the evidence can see that Bush side-tracked the 'War on Terrorism' to include Iraq, resulting in over 2500 American deaths and somewhere between 38,000 and 44,000 civilian deaths. These numbers don't include US or other citizens that have been injured, many of whom will never be the same again.

While Bush can't take all of the blame for Katrina, he had the knowledge and was in the position to do something, but he didn't. Some of the 1300+ deaths could have been avoided.

If you are going to bring ethics into this you can't ignore the results of the actions taken.

In light of this all vey public information, I have to question the ethics of people that are still behind Bush. Is it more important stand behind your/Bush's beliefs than to value life?

by protiusx

I was mearly reading this for enjoyment but this statement is so ignorant I had to respond. I thought Democrats were suppose to be the party of compassion and diversity. I thought that one of the things you lot hate most of all is using generalisms?
You really don't believe this mess do you?

by maxwell edison

I say something nice about a Democrat, Joe Lieberman (and it really was sincere, because I like the guy), and that is what we get. It is amazing how vile and mean-spirited most Democrats have become.

Actually, they've always been that way, all the way back to when they spat on GIs coming back from Vietnam. They lie; they misrepresent; they name-call; they claim things like racism where none exists (except within themselves); they pit one group against another; their policies don't help people become self-sufficient, but rather keep them mired deep in the depths of dependency; and the anger and antagonism in their tone serves only as a window into their character. The epitome of a wolf in sheep's clothing, if you ask me -- except they're naked in the eyes many.

Joe Lieberman, however, just doesn't fit that mold. Perhaps that's why I like him; and perhaps that's why he's almost an outcast within his own party.

by fxef

If it's a Libertarian you want, how about ESR. He could do a folk dance to wake up congress.

by rhomp20029

On what basis? He spent 6 years in the Senate and accomplished absolutely nothing and then ran for president and showed great hair and pearly teeth. The only thing he has shown that I know of is that he can channel a dead girl.

by tig2

Were "potentially" and show "well".

Edwards was the candidate that the Bush camp was afraid of. That he has potential is not really deniable- while his senate record is not studded with achievement, that isn't what they tend to look for in a candidate, is it?

What was and possibly IS fearsome to the Republican party is that Edwards communicates well. Kerry obviously should have left that to the running mate, don't you think? Because Kerry spent an awful lot of time stepping on his dick.

And while I am thinking about it, so did the missus.

Edwards' wife is a cancer survivor. That should play REAL well in the news.

When the question is politics, d@mned few care much about what you stand for. Which is why the system needs an overhaul.

by tracyb

Guys ? Long ago when I had high ideals I researched each and every candidate, their stance on important issues, their voting record if in a previous position, etc.

Then came CSPAN? and my world changed.

What CSPAN taught me was that no matter who you vote for (presumably the best man,) once they hit Washington they vote the party line.

I watched committee after committee and proposal after proposal. At the time, Democrats ran both houses (early 80?s). If a great idea were brought up but by a Republican it was voted down. If a loosely idea were brought up but by a Democrat it was voted in (hence our failed ?War on Poverty? that has created generations of ?you owe me!? familys.)

Now that Republicans run the houses it?s the same but reversed.

I too lean towards Libertarian ideals but without support in Washington, even if we here in AZ could elect one, he couldn?t do anything of value. Nope, you have to be a party player for that.

Well, since my awakening, I?ve done the only thing I can do. I make one vote now and it?s not for the best person, it?s for the party! I choose the party that most represented my ideals and have stuck with them (though after a decade of power they?ve started acting like drunken sailors. Too bad.) But until the Libertarian party can become a larger player nationally they?re all I have!

by tig2

So is Christmas- I know.

My parents taught me to be an informed voter- so I was. They taught me good conservative ideals and I used that information in my selection prcess.

What I have learned is that you can only vote your conscience.

I am still learning the Libertarian party. Max wrote a wonderful essay on this subject in this forum.

What I have come to understand is this- if we don't stand up and get past the fear of standing out, we cannot advance.

Don't give up on your ideals. You already do the hard work that many are not willing to do. Go the next step.

I live in a State that elected Jesse Ventura Governor. He said that he represented what we wanted. He ran under Ross Perot's ticket. He won.

Edited for typo

by viztor

How did he do as governor? The press in this part of the universe indicated he had trouble getting much done because neither party would support him.

by nicknielsen

...and I'm doomed to keep voting my conscience without a hope of ever voting for a winning candidate.

"I'd vote for him, but he hasn't got a chance, and I'm not wasting my vote."

The major problem with trying to establish a viable third party in any two-party system is getting the voting populace past the idea of "wasting" a vote. In our republican democracy, the only wasted vote is the one that isn't cast. In the last Presidential election, almost 44% of the voting age population wasted their votes. (Link: http://shrunklink.com?hjx)

by m in az

What can we really do? I ask myself. Consider this my very first posting on Tech Rep. LOL Of all these years, I haven't seen a very strong leadership whose a democrat with strong vision, words of his/her own who can promise this or that. The other running candidates hasn't clinched my thoughts or interest yet.

I, really, truly, do wish that Al Gore won in the past, and this would have been a different spectrum of life since before 9/11. At this point, all I know is that the next president will have quite a lot of mess to clean up! Yes, to re-kindle better forgein affairs or relationships.

Would we ever get new changes in Presidency? White woman, or black woman or race instead of the historical white men presidency in hundreds of years of running this country. I am a Canuck of citizen and it would be great to see America getting a fresh change of leadership.

One that cares more about the environment, people, the sake of health-welfare, its own people and other countries to lead by example. NO MORE WAR! Ug!

Anyway, what can we do? We shall see unless we vocally support for democrats to lead the next presidency! Tell me who to vote for? Def. not Hillary nor Rice nor whomever is running at this point. Just be thankful that Bush can't run the next term or ensure that Cheney doesn't.

That's my 2 cents worth - or even if it was worth anyway.

*GRIN*

by yobtaf

I agree with everything you said. Especially the fact that we are
governed by a group of white christian males (and I'm a white
male), that don't represent the majority of the population
anymore.

The Republican party has become a marriage of convenience
between the christian right and big business. I believe that the
christian right has every freedom to preach their beliefs and vote
them, and big business can can fight for laws that benefit then,
after all, do need them for jobs and products. But the
combination has become deadly. Because the christian right is
not as generous with allowing other groups their beliefs and big
business would like the middle class to foot most of the bill
while they pay as little as possible.

I'm an independent, neither party satisfies me. But I think that
getting more Democrats into both houses of congress will bring
things closer to the political center. They are disorganized and
maybe that's not such a bad thing, because they don't have the
powerful spin machine that the Republicans have used to
confuse and mislead the public.

by nicknielsen

The current primary system is designed to produce mediocre candidates and has the effect of eliminating almost any candidate who has any chance of appealing to the political mainstream. This system has succeeded admirably, with only two exceptions: Reagan & Clinton.

During the 2000 campaign, I placed Bush & Gore signs side-by-side in my front yard with a banner atop that read "This is a choice?"

by khicker

Maxwell see wha'cha done? IT politics (a new Genre?, better get funding...).
I notice you are non-commital on left or right, Democrat or Republican. I think Joe and Rudy could match up well.
I have to get my five cents in (more than the two earlier) Let me preface this with my ideology in case you don't know where I stand (two steps to the right). My Mother and Father were Democrats and I didn't know I was a Conservative until I got out of the Military. Republican by default, but they are not conservative enough for me, really!
Seems everybody is going left (end of the world?)a bit. since politics (remember that thread?) has turned to Iraq, let's go there and work back down.
Remember November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran.President Carter chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert.the action ended in ruin, and stood as a symbol
of America's inability to deal with terrorism.
Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into
the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. Six months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down
with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait.The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the
main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed. Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked
and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out and executed. Then they bombed TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4, and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in1988, killing 259, (Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war). In January 1993, two
CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters innLangley, Virginia. February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and
over 1000 are injured. Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a U S military complex in
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. Then simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224, (America responds with cruise missile attacks). The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate "the crime". And you know the events of 11 September 2001. For those of you who have been paying attention, America has been under a constant attack since 1979. This is not a political thing - this is an AMERICAN thing. Look up facts (The WEB??) and quit sniveling!!!
A Navy Captain, US Navy Captain Ouimette, the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida gave a speech on this very thing, but you won't hear it in the news because it doesn't fit their agenda (yes Virginia, they do have one).
So you Lefties Buck-up! And now back to Politics..
KH

by viztor

"Over 500 gas shells found in Iraq. 500 separate WMDs."

A few years ago FOX had a story about "gas shells" that "proved" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The BBC story included the fact that the shells were empty casings left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Read both left and right (and middle if you can find it) and then sort it out.

Iraq fought Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my....?

by yobtaf

You're right about the primary system. But Gore looks a lot better
in retrospect. And we don't even know if Bush really won the
election.

I don't know if we can ever get the government that we really want,
one that is basically near the center, with some consideration for
the middle class. After all the middle class pays the lion's share of
the taxes, does all the dying in the wars, and is the majority of the
population.

by tig2

Inventor of the Internet.

I'm so sorry- but I have to question why the "Inventor of the Internet" would have been the better choice.

Because he is a bald face liar?

by Member 25348569

Sources for this and other vitriol, please. :)

Surely, the "inventor of the Internet" crack has long since been put down as right-wing fudge and propaganda.

It would be nice if you could source some examples of "bald face liar" as we saw relatively little of Gore over here and much, much more Bush than we ever wanted.

I do appreciate that it's not my concern who you elect (not much!!) but I do like a balanced picture!

Neil :)

by johnnysacks

Big friggin deal, like anyone but a Halliburton shareholder gives a rats a$$ about some clown half way around the world with a tank of chlorine. Probably a Cheny spin on some water treatment plant chemicals, meanwhile my children are $300,000,000,000 in debth, 2,500 of other peoples children are dead forever for historys greatest nothing since VietNam.

by tig2

Let me start by saying that I don't give a cr@p who ends up in the White House- they are not likely going to represent me. I agree with a few posters here- my party isn't represented and is not likely to be in my lifetime. Which stinks.

So having said that- help me understand why the government is responsible for the aftermath of Katrina? Do I think that FEMA "F"ed up? You bet. The idiot at the helm had NO disater response knowledge. But did he "F" up in a vaccuum? The simple reality is NO HE DID NOT.

The governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans had a major role to play in the horsesh*t that followed the storm. The Mayor of New Orleans seems pretty intent on establishing "a chocolate city" and disenfranchising all non African-Americans now. He was completely ineffectual when he could have done something material during the storm. He is a major idiot but no one seems to bring that to light- the issue is George. The agencies that DID try to help are having their hats handed to them because the aid they provided was used to purchase non essentials.

The gov already has their hand in my wallet. I don't want to see a time when they can steal more from me. A disaster strikes- and believe me, I KNOW what that looks like- I want to have access to ALL of my income to deal with it. I don't want the gov determining what resources I am going to be allowed to have.

I care about the policies of any candidate for public office. I want to know that they will REDUCE not EXPAND the impact of government. I think that people need to grow the heck up and start fending for themselves and quit the whining about "public programmes". Because the programmes DON'T work. They just provide a way for policy makers to manage their guilt.

And incidentally- some of those 1300+ deaths could also have been avoided if the levees had been fixed as recommended by "government" 25 years ago. The people of the great State of Louisiana didn't care to deal with that. George didn't have a dog in that fight. I don't see a rationale for blaming him now.

by rob mekel

Bush did have a finger in that. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372455,00.html
And yes I know it's an article from a former Clinton advisor, so probably not a supporter of Bush. At the time that this came out I wasn't aware that I should have to recall on it but I do know that a year back (actually about 9 month ago) it was admitted by the Bush administration.

You are right about the fact that we should be very suspicious as on how our government is spending our money (it isn't that much difference between one government and another)
I do know that flooding prevention programs are very expensive. As we Dutch have been fighting the water, whether it would be flooding from rainfall/rivers (indirectly rainfall) or sea, for centuries it is not one can pay from running budgets but has to be planned long in advance.

This is what good government is about, protecting its citizens from (predictable) disaster to come.
For seeing what is about to happen and take the necessary steps to encourage the good stuff and prevent the bad things to happen.

As on the Mayor of New Orleans/Governor of Louisiana, I am not sure if them is much to blame. Altho I'm getting the impression that there is some slippery mud on their fingers.

Did this help you on your question for clarification or was that a rhetorical one :)

Rob

by jdclyde

You are not familiar with out form of government, but it is not the President ruling over the minions.

Each state has control of themselves, and it is THEIR responsiblity to take care of their own infrastructure, levies included.

The mayor was able to get all the buses running to get the poor poor to the polls to vote for him, but couldn't to evacuate the poor poor from the city.

The Governor denied requests for assistance when it was first offered, because she didn't want to share the limelight with a Republican, until it was clear she was in over her head so she started crying that the feds wouldn't help her out.

Also, the majority of the deaths from the flooding belong on the Darwin awards, because they didn't stay because they couldn't leave, they stayed because like most morons, they believed "it won't happen to me". They DECIDED to ride out the storm, not the poor poor stuck in the path of the storm.

This same mayor got re-elected, so they deserve every bad thing that will happen now because of his continued incompetence.

by tig2

When the City itself refused to pay for what IT needed?

My point, Rob, is that the City had been ignoring the problem for about 20 odd years. There had been a lot of finger pointing about whose responsibility it was and who needed to foot the bill. Frankly, I think that the City- who receives money from its taxpayers- should have been responsible for taking care of the problem. After all, it was the City at risk. EDIT to add- Unlike the Netherlands where the issue is coastal and impacts a larger region, the New Orleans levees were more of a localised issue.

I agree that Bush did cut Federal funding. So did Clinton when the issue came up on HIS watch. The fact remains that it was a political hot potato for a long time and instead of making any effort, New Orleans has just waited for someone else to step up.

I think that people need to be responsible for themselves and quit expecting that the government is going to step in and save them. As the article points out, that isn't going to happen.

Edit to add a point

by yobtaf

What you don't seem to understand is that the purpose of a
government is supply services for the people that they can't
supply for themselves. Things like roads, bridges, protection (in
the form of an army and police), a legal system etc.

In order to have a workable society, you have to have these
service. We can't all live in the woods of Montana and patrol our
own little hamlets with a shot gun, It just doesn't work for the
people who want to be part of society.

Unfortunately, our government, like all human institutions, is
corrupt. You could go live in the woods of Montana (Sorry
Montana, I'm just using you as an example) or fight the
corruption.

Since the government is in theory here to serve us, it is our
institution and we must pay for it. And in case you didn't know it
corporations, by act of the courts, are considered individuals or
in short people (go figure that one out).

As part of the system we elect people to represent us in the
government. Since human institutions are subject to corruption,
our elected representatives sometimes are not doing what they
were elected to.

Within this system there really should be more then two political
parties. Most democracies have multiple parties.

Finally, there has always been a debate over how much power
the state governments should have and how much the federal.
So some people want less government and some want more. But
first we have to agree that a government is necessary then we
can debate the size of it.

Despite Dick Chaney's belief in an imperial president, Bush is
actually our elected representative. He works for us.

In the case of Katrina, Bush dropped the ball again. Also under
our system, Louisiana and New Orleans can elect anybody they
want.

Rebuilding New Orleans is more inline with the purpose of
government then fighting wars for fabricated reasons. So your
money is going into that endeavor and you should be involved in
how it's spent. I don't however feel that you should be too
influenced by the rhetoric thrown that was thrown around during
to election there.

As a citizen you have every right and responsibility to fight for
how your money is spent and how big the government is.
Hopefully, we can debate these issues and come to a
compromise. It wouldn't satisfy everybody but that's what
compromise is all about. The sad part is that the system is not
working the way it was meant to. Special interest groups have
effectively kidnapped the government from us. Dick Chaney and
George Bush are the worst example of this.

There is always the possibility that the government can be
restored but it requires all of us to work together despite our
opposing views.

Lies, spin and catch phrases have become the way of controlling
the popular opinion. This is no way to run the country and only
we can stop it. The problem is that most of our information
comes from news source that are more concerned about ratings
and entertainment then about truth. And I'm pointing my finger
at all of them. Ironically you can get more news from The
Comedy Channel then from the network news.

All I want you to do is use your brain.

by tig2

Is use yours.

I don't mind government to oversee foundational infrastructure. Some unity is required there.

But government is GOVERNMENT, not your Daddy, priest, or pshrink. They are not there to kiss every boo-boo or carry you along.

New Orleans had a responsibility to itself that it chose to abrogate. Not my problem- even if I had to pay for it.

You're right- they can elect what... I mean whoever they want. A Louisianan told me that they elect the same crooks over and over because they at least KNOW how much they will steal. That is a heck of a philosophy, don't you think?

I distrust ALL politicos equally. As far as I am concerned there are no angels. But I am sick and tired of being forced to make charitable contributions to people that I do NOT think deserve them.

Do I care about supporting the infrastructure? Yes, and don't mind paying my share. Do I want to be forced to give a handout to every unwed mother out there? NO. I have better causes to contribute to than someone who refuses to try for themselves.

The "victims" of the Hurricane were in many cases victims by choice. I shouldn't have to pay them for their stupidity. I would much rather fund a chemo treatment for a woman with cancer and no health insurance.

And before you decide that I have no clue, I invite you to an entry in the Libertarian thread. Believe it or not, (a) I know from whence I speak and (b) have an incredibly good reason for feeling the way I do.

You walk awhile in MY shoes before you decide that I am not using my brain.

by tig2

Attack on the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf. My ex got to help fish 17 dead sailors out of the water. No one remembers.

The attack on Captain and Mrs Rogers on US soil- her minivan was blown up on school property. And Sharon simply "went away". It was considered to be retailiation because of an incident in the Gulf that no one will ever know the whole truth of.

Incidentally- if you are a friendly and over flying a Navy battle group, identify yourself as a friendly from the outset...

by khicker

Just wanted to bring up a few known incidents that the "naturally blind" of the group would recognize.
Bush is not my favorite guy, but I believe, the best for this time. I consider him to be the "lesser of two evils" in the political arena, but we all "want what we want". I seem to be very Conservative in a lot of areas, something that both parties - are not.
I believe in self reliance, not asking, but begrudgingly (misunderestimating...*grin*) accepting help, and knowing I am better equipped to help/protect myself and my own than any state or federal entity is. I support those institutions for the greater good of all, and expect those in positions of authority to properly manage those areas of responsibility. HEYY..., sounds like a pipe dream, huh! Alas, the expectations are diminished.
Incidentally, I'm not so friendly but I'm not rabid either... reminder of a D?mon perhaps.
KH

by tig2

I only caught out two instances. Your point was VERY valid.

Why do we insist on forgetting this stuff? Why do we assume no one else remembers?

I distrust all pols equally. But we have what we have until the next "flavour of the month".

by viztor

There's a Russian joke about the difference between the U.S. and Russia: "In Russia, we know what the government says is a lie." People who are shown to be correct on the issues are left wandering in the political wilderness, and the posers-that-be want to erode our military in new adventures. Careerism before integrity has become an American disease.

by gregt

Is that so that we can follow the incredibly bad decision (to invade Iraq) with the equally stupid decision to stay in Iraq? Maybe you haven't noticed, but it's not getting better over there. Wake up!

by Former member

That we have your objective insider view on what is going on in iraq ;)

Seems like it took something on the order of 9 years to sort out Germany after WWII. Not very patient nowadays, are we?

by Member 25348569

Several times since the invasion of Iraq, Bush administration officials have compared the attacks in post-war Iraq to the situation in post-war Germany after World War II. George Bush said America had "done this kind of work before" "We contributed years and resources to this cause" of rebuilding Germany and "that effort has been repaid many times over three generations of friendship and peace." I see that you're buying into that bollocks.

US occupiers found a reasonably intact economic infrastructure in the West of Germany. German society was ethnically homogeneous and, if religious, almost exclusively Christian. The Germans were also completely familiar with and ready for a return to democratic government. They were also pretty damn glad that it was the US and not the Russians. Oh, and 3,000,000 soldiers helped.

The Iraqi people are in an entirely different situation, having no historical experience with any form of democracy, ethnically diverse and, although all nominally Muslim, deeply divided religiously.

There have been comparisons drawn between Iraqis leading attacks against US forces and the Nazi "Werewolves", most notably by Condoleezza Rice: "between 1945 and 1947, Werewolves engaged in sabotage and attacked both coalition forces and those locals cooperating with them"

In fact, besides the single assassination of the mayor of Aachen, and a few scattered incidents of unruly Hitlerjugend, there was no German resistance to speak of.

by protiusx

It is getting better over there. I can speak to that for a certainty. The numbers show this. It isn?t something that the liberal media will report but over the last two years the number of attacks has decreased and the number of injuries per attack has decreased. Now, as for why a multi-national force went into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein should be argued at a different time. We?re there for better or worse and we owe it to the Iraqi people to stay for as long as it takes them to get their country secure from the foreign onslaught that is being perpetrated upon them from such places as Jordan, Syria and Iran. They?ve come a long way but their so called neighbors aren?t helping matters much.

by jdclyde

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/index.html
[i]
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
[/i]

This has been a service provided by the JD Enlightenment Foundation. B-)

by Member 25348569

I do truly believe that he didn't quite say what he meant to say in the way he said it and that the "left-wing media" (well, there aren't any others, are there according to you guys so it couldn't have been "right-wing") have spun it beyond all recognition, again and again. This has been raised before - many times - and it has always been answered. But it's history, now, and It's about time it was put to sleep. Time it was put to death.

What he [b]was[/b] attempting to say, in my humble unbiased FOREIGN opinion, was that he was a leader in setting the economic environment that allowed the Internet to flourish by virtue of the legislation which he sponsored more so than anyone else in government at that time.

Gore would not seriously try to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet. No-one would be that stupid.

I remember this quote from a certain D. Quayle - "if Gore invented the Internet, I invented spell-check." What I also remember is that many of the researchers who [b]were[/b] involved in the Internet's creation said Gore deserves much credit for passing a number of bills that helped create the Internet as it exists today.

There are lots of quotes that I could use but I'll use this one from Vint Cerf: "I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by Al Gore when he was the vice president and in his earlier role as senator."

So. Is his claim to be the legislative primary champion of the Internet valid? Does he deserve credit for that? I await your answers with interest!

by tonythetiger

Gore introduced legistation that financially benefitted either a business in his district (or possibly a business in another politician's district who he either owed a favor to or from whom he planned on asking one later), or one that supplied sufficient campaigh contributions.

Does he deserve any credit? Well, if one is going to take the credit for good things that happen because of one's legislation, I would think that one should be equally willing to take the blame for the bad things that happen because of it(specific examples might make for a good topic). It would suprise me if any politician were willing to do that.

by jdclyde

You asked the source of the quote, and so I gave you the exact article where he misstated himself.

Gore, an excellent public speaker (until his nervous breakdown a year or so ago) said that "creating the internet" quote.

It is a direct quote, and people can go back and make excuses for what he MEANT to say, but it doesn't make it any less funny what he DID say.

We would not hear the same "what he meant to say" excuses from these same people if it was over something Bush said, or even Blair, huh?

Vint, now working for Google has shown himself to be evil! :D "Chief Internet Evangelist" and we know how much YOU love evangelists! ;\ Now your quoting them? :0

[i]"Is his claim to be the legislative primary champion of the Internet valid?"[/i]
was that his claim? Can we give him single handedly the credit?

As the net got it's booming start in the USofA, how did his contributions affect other nations as well?
[i]
"the Internet would not be where it is in the United States"[/i]

by rob mekel

that there is some slippery mud on their fingers." as is an understatement of their blame.

Didn't hear you say anything on Bush and his administration on the subject of redirecting the money for the flood prevention program towards the war on terrorism. That is where the flood prevention program did fail! Lack of money to do things right.

Alltho we have a constitutional Monarchy the way we are governed isn't that much different from the USA. Alltho not federal like the USA the provinces we have are much like your states and our towns are much the same as your counties/towns ruled. And yes The Netherlands is much smaller then the USA but never the less we all have to cooperate with our neighbours.

As costal defense is not only in support of the ones living directly on the coast but also, in the long term, for the ones living more land inward,[i]more directly no coast line - no harbour, no harbour - no ships coming up stream to support your city's, btw oil/energy how does it come to you? and don't say by pipeline from Texas or Alaska (and even the oil from Alaska goes to Valdez and is shipped from there) as the USA imports a lot of oil from the Middle East[/i] it gives you the oblige to support the effort on coastal defense whether it is a foreign country invading or the sea/storms/hurricanes attacking the coast line. It is called: you benefit from it you pay for it. It is directly related to your own safety and quality of life.

And yes you are right on the stupidity of people to believe "this won't happen to me" and even on re-electing the political responsible ones. But don't say it is a matter of them only on coastal defense as it is more a National issue than a regional/State issue.

Rob

by Member 25348569

It was just that TiggerTwo quoted the "inventor of the Internet" in what seemed to be a serious manner and I really do think that it's about time that this old chestnut was buried. I asked Tig2 the source of the quote with the hope of some justification for continuing to beat the man up for something he didn't do long after he would have deserved it if he had!

Gore didn't "invent" the Internet and never said that he did but he was given credit by a number of people who did.

He seems OK to me. He'd have got my vote if I'd have had one. I certainly wouldn't have given my vote to someone who says "The jury is still out on evolution" and whose hobby is invading Islamic countries.

:D

by tonythetiger

'State' means the same thing over here as it does over there.

...and...

"Also, the majority of the deaths from the flooding belong on the Darwin awards, because they didn't stay because they couldn't leave, they stayed because like most morons, they believed "it won't happen to me". They DECIDED to ride out the storm, not the poor poor stuck in the path of the storm."

... or stayed to see what they could steal from those who [b]did[/b] leave.

by tig2

Quoting the transcript:
"But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

The actual transcript can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/

Hope this is helpful!

by tonythetiger

The federal government had earmarked funds for enhancements to New Orleans' levee system, as well as funds to implement an evacuation plan. The state of Louisiana was given the earmarked amount .... but they decided to use these funds for other projects. This happenned long before 9/11, and long before Bush was in the White House.

Most of the damage would not have occurred had the money been spent as it was intended. Many of us here don't think we should have to pay for Louisiana's blunder, and are dismayed that the citizens chose to re-elect the idiots responsible. I agree with JD that those citizens deserve all of the consequences of their stupidity. The ones who didn't vote for the incumbents probably should leave.

by tig2

I misquoted. But I was actually going for a more tongue in cheek thing.

I tend to think that anyone that WANTS to be president is disqualified by their desire. Frankly I distrust both sides equally.

I would like to see someone without an agenda elected but I don't think I will live that long.

I apologise for the misquote.

by jamesrl

The builder of the levees is the Army Corps of Engineers, a federal agency.

Congress authorized the project in the 1960s (SouthEast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project).

I'm sorry, when you have multiple levels of government involved in a project, the senior level is usually responsible for project management/co-ordination. It is awfully difficult to have a junior partner dictate to the federal government - the feds hold the cards.

I don't dispute that successive administrations have ignored the issue.

Frankly, the city should have been moved after the studies in the 60s determined the severity of the risk.

James

by khicker

So, are they listening? Oh no, I forgot that is President Bush's job, to listen in on everbody... I guess the Democrats will have to find out another way. Maybe... Al Gore could help them listen with that internet thing he was instrumental in building.

Lieberman < Rudy G.
It's a simple math problem.
KH

by tig2

Rudy is a leader.

Only have to check his record to know that. But Rudy is a Rep and Liberman is a Dem.

As I have said- your mouth to God's ear. I would love to see Rudy run. Don't know that it will happen...

by jellimonsta

I would love to see Rudy run too. I strongly believe that he would win if he does so.
Also, due to the events of 9/11 he has international sympathy and support, so maybe it would help quiet all the dem noise on global relations.

by Former member

I am not buying into any bullocks, and your comments actaully support my point. If it took so long to get things sorted in Germany, where inf. was intact, and religious, social and ethical systems were fairly similar, why is it that we think Iraq is going to get sorted overnight?

by Member 25348569

My point is that there is [b]absolutely[/b] no comparison between Germany post WWII and present day Iraq therefore we can draw no conclusions [b]whatsoever[/b] in terms of expected timescales and outcome nor can we take any lessons from Germany or Japan in terms of strategy to adopt now. Iraq is a brand new experience for the US and you'll have to make it up as you go along.

My post was also intended to flag up that the Bush administration do not appear to know that Iraq and Germany aren't the same! Which is kind of worrying as they are there, waist deep in the crap and - much more to the point - my stupid Prime Minister has dragged us in too!

Just one more thing, my American chum, define "sorted", please. One of the real problems that I have is that I see the US trying to set up the sort of political and economic structures that they believe that you have at home and they are not in the least appropriate. Whatever type of government the Iraqis need - and I suspect that it's a version of what we took away from them - it's obvious that, given the hugely sectarian and tribal nature of Iraq, one man, one vote isn't going to work just yet. I think that we can all clearly see that but it doesn't stop you trying, does it.

Given that if you're right it's going to take a very long time (decades?) why is it that significant sections of your country are already scratching around for an exit plan?

Cut your losses - and mine, too. Get out as quickly as possible. Everyone hates us already so what difference will it make?

Just my 2ps worth...

by Former member

straightened out, functioning smoothly. I'm not going to argue that we are doing it correctly over there, I honestly don't know. I suspect it could be handled better, but I don't pretend to be sufficiently wise in world politics to make that judgement. Nor will I debate that we went there for the right reasons. Or even that we should have gone.

But, the fact remains that we DID go, we blew stuff up borke some furniture, threw up on the carpet... We came to the party (uninvited or not), and so now we have a responsibility to clean up after ourselves.

by oz_media

Overnight? How about ever? instead of equating it to WWII, how about the reality of success being equated to Vietnam instead?

WWII was a world war, Iraq is America's war.

by Former member

Vietnam was not a war, it was a 'police action' or 'conflict' war was never officially declared. Seems like splitting hairs, I know, but as I understand it, the politics of the situatin are quite different. There was no real goal or objective, and military authority was rather limited.

I have talke to quite a few paeople who were there, and virtually every one of them has indicated that had war been declared the outcome would have been vary different.

As such I don't think Vietnam is a good comparison.

by jamesrl

But I have spent a fair amount of time in the US South - North Carolina, Alabama.

There is racism everywhere, not just in the US south. I'd have to say from my somewhat limited perspective, I might concede it may be stronger in the US south than many places, but I don't think it holds a majority sway. It would not stop someone getting elected, though it would perhaps make it a tighter race.

And I have worked on several political campaigns for women, and campaigned for women in positions of leadership, in the conservative party in Canada. Over the last 20 years, again I have seen the numbers of people opposed to women dwindle down to a fairly insignificant amount.

My comment on Rice would be communications. She is an academic, a policy wonk and she speaks with that tone. Thats a big strike against her. She is also too closely identified with Bush, who is not doing well in the polls, and that matters.

James

by faradhi

There is still a huge race issue here. When I moved to the south from growing up in a military community, It was a huge culture shock. The first day in high school, I was confronted by a group of kids because I was speaking with a "black kid" on the bus.

Now as an adult it is far more subtle. For example, My first apartment was in a middle class area. When a "black" family moved to the apartment next to me, three white families moved out of the complex. Now, one may be a coincidence, but three. I was told by one that they did not want to live by my new neighbors.

That is just one of many stories I could tell. I am a white male and I see it. I am not what you would call super observant. I have actually had people say to me, "That thar Rice lady is prudy smart for a N****R." When I objected, I was called a N***** lover.

The attitude is changing. It is far better now than it was 15 - 20 years ago. But it is still predominant enough to affect polls.

by jamesrl

The people I worked with were all IT people, well educated, in a company that promotes diversity and tolerance(actually two different companies). So naturally I don't see the day to day stuff that occurs.

And perhaps living where I do, I get used to pretty tolerent behaviour. Here we have straight people going to gay pride events, white people attending Caribana (great event too crowded) etc etc. According to the latest stats, even in my formerly whitebread suburb, 1/3 of the residents weren't born in Canada and a majority of those are either from south Asia (Indian subcontinent) or Caribean. If you used the N word in my city, you'd see so many jaws drop. And you would probably be ostracized pretty quickly.

In the riding next door to mine, a political neophyte, a young Indian born female doctor won as representative at the federal level. The conservatives elected a female leader in 1991 (she fought one election and did badly, but not because she was a woman). In the current Liberal Leadership race, there are quite a few women involved - almost half the candidates.

We have had many women as Governor General here. The GG is a mainly cermonial role - they are the Queen's representative - they "sign" all the bills in order to make them laws, but they don't have any real power. The current GG was born poor in Haiti, and is female. The one prior was also female of Chinese ancestry.

James

by too old for it

I'd scour the grad schools for card-carrying conservative women who graduated in the top 5% of the class and would make Paris Hilton look frumpy. Give them a refresher course in how to apply make up and the purpose of low-riders, mini-skirts and crop-tops. I'd send them over to every fundamentalist Islamic theocracy on the planet as United States Ambassadors, and by the way lets talk about your treatment of women and children.

And in Africa, lets talk about how your brother in law has to have sex with your AIDS infested widow just to prove something-or-the-other.

I think I could save a bundle in the foriegn aid budget as well ... [b]don't send any![/b]

(Edited for fat fingers)

by dboxman7

The too old phrase was tossed around a great deal with Reagan as well and overall he was a good president (all relative, of course). The bottom line is that whether or not you think the wars we are fighting are right or wrong, WE ARE AT WAR!!! We need a warrior who has been there and done that. Kerry was in it and I respect that, but his faults outweighed his experience. McCain p1sses off a lot of people, but he is clearly the best wartime candidate...unless Cheney steps up :).

by x-marcap

WoW!!! That is a shock to some of you.

He puts the good of the country above partisan politics. Wish Howard Dean, Hillary et al would do the same.

by maxwell edison

Even though Joe Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democrat Party primary (Democrats aren't too bright) for U.S. Senator, as any "informed" person knows, he's still in the race, but he will run as an independent. I predict [b]HE WILL WIN THAT RACE[/b], as an independent, and he will return to the U.S. Senate for his fourth term. You Democrats just lost another seat in the Senate -- and you did it to yourselves!

The reason for my prediction is this: Republicans won't win a race for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut, and they know it. A Republican Senator from Connecticut is as rare as a sensible message from Oz (well, not THAT rare, but it hasn't happened in a looooong time). If I were a Connecticut resident, I'd vote for Lieberman, and so will a lot of Republicans. The narrow margin of victory that Ned Lamont saw in the primary, will whittle down to a more significant margin of loss in the general election. Ned Lamont, your 15 minutes of fame are about to come to an end.

You heard it here first.

by tryskadec

someone who still embraces a party noted for it's lying, incompetence, and corruption.

not for nothing, but I question your judgement.

by tryskadec

They lie;
~~thousands dead because of the war in Iraq. One hell of a lie got us into that one.

~~they misrepresent;

where do we start witht he laundry list.

~~they name-call;

listened to Ann Coulter ever in your life? How about Bill O'reilly? actually let's go back to the 2002 Georgia Senate Race, and what your glorious party did to Max Cleland.

~~they claim things like racism where none exists (except within themselves);

I recall a big to-do about Dick Cheney's daughter being lesbian. Also I believe Racism was the reason, that people were asking Condi the tough questions.

~~~they pit one group against another;
Like Christians versus Gays? The Working Class versus Unions? Americans versus Mexicans? etc, etc.

~~their policies don't help people become self-sufficient, but rather keep them mired deep in the depths of dependency;

Dependency to whom? I like how our military is now dependent on Defense COntractors for every little thing. And how Americans are dependent on countries we're at war with, and companies making record profits for the oil we're paying record prices for. I also like how Americans are totally dependent on illegal alien labor, and China for the majority of our goods and services.

~~~and the anger and antagonism in their tone serves only as a window into their character.

Yeah - like comments about how "democrats are wasting air" and the like.

~~~The epitome of a wolf in sheep's clothing, if you ask me -- except they're naked in the eyes many.

yes. taken a look at any polls lately? The emperor has no clothes.

Look - i'm not even a Democrat and i'm sick of this partisan hackery. I can't believe you're still trying to start this divisive BS - it's 2006 - that's soo 2004 of you. Get over yourself, the secodn term of the Republican screwing of America has proven to be a failure. Let it go.

All this trip you just spewed is projection. Soemwhere deep in your heart, you know you're full of it. Just own up. it's ok to be wrong, from time to time. We're all human, and we will forgive you.