I want bad things to happen so a democrat will win?
You're an idiot.
All I'm saying is that the capture of Saddam does not make Bush unbeatable. Besides starting a unnecassary war, he's taken his eye off the ball. Which was the war on terrorism. Catching Saddam does not make the war justified... or his "plan" any more likely to bring peace and democracy to the middle east.
Having little faith that Bush can get it right is different than hoping things will go wrong.
Kinda can't help but note that, for your side to win, you (seem to) have to hope that bad things happen. Must get on your nerves, that.
Aries 1B
Well, after driving the economy into the ground, and piling on record debt, pulling the U.S. into Vietnam II , I don't see what the republicans can do to make things any worse?
Well, after driving the economy into the ground, and piling on record debt, pulling the U.S. into Vietnam II , I don't see what the republicans can do to make things any worse?
Fold your tents, go home, its over. Best you kiss some Republican ass and hope your name does not end up on an enemies list (we are compiling them now).
Yep its finished, just going through the motion now...the Democratics best push one another into the ring...
It will look like Woody Allen vs. Mike Tyson..not pretty.
I view the capture of Saddam as a big plus for President Bush. I had grown a little concerned with the chaos in Iraq during the period Saddam was on the loose. I think what this war is all about is democracy in the middle east and the security of Israel principally and indeed the rest of the democratic world secondarily.
Why is this good for Israel?
snip"The former Iraqi ruler was a hero to many Palestinians for his stand against Israel and its U.S. ally, as well as for giving financial aid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and others who died in a three-year-old uprising."snip
snipHamas: U.S. will pay for capturing saddam
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and his government made no comment. But Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, a senior leader of the militant Hamas group, said the United States would "pay a very high price for the mistake" of capturing Saddam.
"What the United States did is ugly and despicable. It is an insult to all Arabs and an insult to Muslims," he told Reuters.snip
This forces the question of "What is good for Arab Muslims?"
I suggest democracy is better for Muslims of any ethnicity over that of dictator style rule and control. This is also my belief for Christians living in the US or secularists of any nationality or ethnicity the world over.
The politics of terror contained in my snips above is not something the democratic world will bow down to.
snipSaddam paid over $35 million to the kin of Palestinian suicide bombers, militants and bystanders who died in an uprising that began in 2000.
Although far from all Palestinians supported him, militants marched to back Saddam ahead of the U.S.-led invasion in March and Palestinian protesters were often heard chanting: "Oh, Saddam. Oh, Saddam. Bomb, bomb Tel Aviv".snip
Again this hatred of Jews is not something the civilized world will back away from and allow with the Bush admin. in Washington.
#2 say something intelligent if you are going to say anything.
thanks
Don't worry, my post was intelligent. There are a lot of people calling for the death of Saddam and it's pure hate. If you really think hate should end, start here. You have more influence here than you would in Iraq.
Don't worry, my post was intelligent. There are a lot of people calling for the death of Saddam and it's pure hate. If you really think hate should end, start here. You have more influence here than you would in Iraq.
Grow up? Um, yeah, OK.
sorry for the insults.
I am against the death penalty even for saddam.
I have been against the death penalty clearly from day one here on the forum.
I am talking about something larger than the hate of one man.
Somehow, they manage to hold them without any leaks (obviously, this is would never happen).
U.S. releases Saddam's capture before Christmas, everyone celebrates, thinks Bush is unbeatable.
A few weeks before election day, when Saddam is old news and no one cares anymore, they release news of Osama's capture. Hooray for Bush, election over.
Personally, unless this happens, I still think the election is up for grabs, but the Democrats need to start offering something substantial. Clark is a good candidate: he actually has plans. Dean seems to be running on a mantra of "I hate Bush, You hate Bush, Let's hate Bush together" which is really unappealing to those who actually care about substance in politics, not just sound bites. So hopefully there will be a Primary Miracle, and Clark will end up winning the Democratic ticket...otherwise, Bush probably will win.
Dean seems to be running on a mantra of "I hate Bush, You hate Bush, Let's hate Bush together" which is really unappealing to those who actually care about substance in politics, not just sound bites.
I don't know why you needed to say this, it is a ridiculous statement. Read anything about Dean, and you'll notice he has a lot of substance. True, he has been against the war since the beginning and has criticized bush for it. So, to some I guess this criticism comes off as simply a call to band together bush haters.
But this is not Dean's primary purpose, as is clearly evident through any amount of research. Dean is HUGE in the areas of Health Care and fiscal responsibility. For folks like me who would like the idea of health care for everyone under 25 and who strongly support health care accessibility regardless of income, Dean has a ton of substance.
Also, for folks who like fiscal responsibility, they may appreciate that at the beginning of this year, Dean's state had a budget surplus while 47 out of the 50 states were running a deficit. Maintaining a budget surplus is an absolute priority of Dean, and his record has proved this to a T. He is incredibly experienced in being fiscally responsible.
Of course, none of this even mentions the grass-roots nature of dean's campaign, and the significance of mobilizing support and funding the way his campaign has.
I would vote for Clark or Dean, I support the democratic party and I think both candidates have certain stengths, and Dean is a better fit for me. However, to suggest that Dean's campaign has no substance is just to be very misinformed.
If the elections were tomorrow Bush would roll Dean like a whore rolling a fat, drunk accountant at a convention in Vegas.
11 months is a long time and our president is not the most eloquent or sophisticated man on the planet.
Indeed. The problem is that at the moment the Democrat candidates are too busy piling on Dean...
It's going to be interesting to watch how the candidates try to play this. It's pretty obvious that they won't be able to change the subject for some time--the initial exuberance will give way to the trial will give way to the sentencing will give way to... And so on.
They can't make it a non-issue, since it's a HUGE issue, and the success in finding SH doesn't allow them to point to the absent and "irrelevant" OBL, since all the opposition has to do is say "Hey! Give us time. We got SH!"
They can't *really* run on the War on Terrah being a failure, since the capture of SH means that there's been progress. And pointing out the obvious issues--bombings, attacks, etc.--makes them seem as if they're hoping for bad things to happen.
Turning to the domestic is equally problematic: the economy seems to have picked up, and anything else they might point to (education problems, state budget crises, CA's impending doom) pales in comparison.
I imagine there'll be some attacks on key admin figures (notably Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice) leveled late in the game in an attempt to surround the President with scandals. Let's hope they come up with something better than "Oooh! Oooh! He got a DUI!"
I guess, in the end, I have three questions:
1) Can the Dem candidates change the subject vis a vis foreign policy?
2) Can the Dem candidates count on the 24-hour news cycle eating this story pretty quickly?
3) Can the Dem candidates change the channel to domestic issues? And if so, what do they bring up?
exactly. anyone who would vote for dean will be happy to vote clark if they need to. many people who will vote for clark won't vote for dean. dean is not the best canidate to give the democrats a chance in 2004.
The election is an entire political lifetime away. Almost two of them, in fact. It's great that Saddam Hussein's been captured, but that won't equate to a lot of political capital next November.
Bush has given the Democrats a lot of potential wedge issues which, if utilized properly, could turn the election against them.
There's his utterly irresponsible management of the Federal budget. A great moral issue can be made out of the fact that the GOP's absurd profligate spending is producing a debt that will crush -- CRUSH -- our children. He's brokering what he wants today on the backs of the unborn. That's a travesty, and a potentially very potent issue.
The fact that even the recent tepid upturn in the national economy took hundreds of billions of over-stimulation by the government.
There's the "prescription drug benefit" in Medicare, which once explained to people is clearly exposed as an expensive sham that will do little to help many of the sickest of seniors, and will help push many more into HMOs.
There's the fact that he's not seeking criminal charges against Halliburton for its egregious overcharging of the American taxpayer for its actions in Iraq. Now, gee, why would Bush go soft on those crooks?
There's the fact that we've totally lost focus on the real war on terror: Afghanistan. Iraq was not part of the "War on Terror." Bush has totally dropped the ball in Afghanistan and needed an easy victory to cover his ass. Iraq, being decrepit and isolated, was that easy victory. If things do wind down there -- and I hope they do -- then the cluster $$$$ that is Bush's policy in Afghanistan will be easier to bring to light in time for the vote.
There are other issues, too. Older Democratic types. The fact that the Bush team pushed at all for a prescription drug plan for Medicare is evidence that prescription drug prices -- and, in fact, all medical costs -- in this country are absurd. The Democrats can offer something on that front.
With the nearing retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, the Democrats can also effectively play the Roe card. If Bush gets to pick a replacement for O'Connor, Roe v. Wade is dust. That issue wasn't highlighted by Gore in 2000, but it's always a surefire winner amongst educated female voters (post-grad females vote 80/20 Democratic as is, but throw Roe into peril and that number could easily rise to 90/10).
And there's the issue of lost prestige abroad. If there are more cases like the recent trial in Germany, where suspected Al Qaeda members (you remember Al Qaeda, our real enemy, before Bush dangled the chimera of the Iraqi threat before us) are let free because of US intrangsigence to share intelligence with "Old Europe" types, that could be a potent issue. Connect Bush's swaggering, arrogant, assholish treatment of our historical allies with setbacks in the war on terror.
There's the Clean Water Bill, the Clean Air Act, and all the other environmental regulations Bush has weakened. America's air will be dirtier and our water less safe to drink because of Bush. Arsenic, anyone?
This election is not over, not by a long shot. The political winds favor Bush more this week than they did last. But that's no sure indicator for next month, to say nothing of 11 months from now.
Comments
I want bad things to happen so a democrat will win?
You're an idiot.
All I'm saying is that the capture of Saddam does not make Bush unbeatable. Besides starting a unnecassary war, he's taken his eye off the ball. Which was the war on terrorism. Catching Saddam does not make the war justified... or his "plan" any more likely to bring peace and democracy to the middle east.
Having little faith that Bush can get it right is different than hoping things will go wrong.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
There they go again.
I want bad things to happen so a democrat will win?
...
Having little faith that Bush can get it right is different than hoping things will go wrong.
Ah we know what really beats in your little Gollum heart. "We mustn't shows our true feelings...we's must be loyal...bad Chu Bakka...bad!
But it's like shadow boxing... you can't hit what doesn't exist.
Bush has spent more and created more government...
he just doesn't plan to pay for it.
If you think 4% growth is good. I want some of the drugs you and Rush are taking.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Kinda can't help but note that, for your side to win, you (seem to) have to hope that bad things happen. Must get on your nerves, that.
Aries 1B
Well, after driving the economy into the ground, and piling on record debt, pulling the U.S. into Vietnam II , I don't see what the republicans can do to make things any worse?
Originally posted by the cool gut
Well, after driving the economy into the ground, and piling on record debt, pulling the U.S. into Vietnam II , I don't see what the republicans can do to make things any worse?
Get Reelected...heh heh.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
That's true. That would make things worse.
Well its a gonna happen sport.
Fold your tents, go home, its over. Best you kiss some Republican ass and hope your name does not end up on an enemies list (we are compiling them now).
Yep its finished, just going through the motion now...the Democratics best push one another into the ring...
It will look like Woody Allen vs. Mike Tyson..not pretty.
Why is this good for Israel?
snip"The former Iraqi ruler was a hero to many Palestinians for his stand against Israel and its U.S. ally, as well as for giving financial aid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and others who died in a three-year-old uprising."snip
snipHamas: U.S. will pay for capturing saddam
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and his government made no comment. But Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, a senior leader of the militant Hamas group, said the United States would "pay a very high price for the mistake" of capturing Saddam.
"What the United States did is ugly and despicable. It is an insult to all Arabs and an insult to Muslims," he told Reuters.snip
This forces the question of "What is good for Arab Muslims?"
I suggest democracy is better for Muslims of any ethnicity over that of dictator style rule and control. This is also my belief for Christians living in the US or secularists of any nationality or ethnicity the world over.
The politics of terror contained in my snips above is not something the democratic world will bow down to.
snipSaddam paid over $35 million to the kin of Palestinian suicide bombers, militants and bystanders who died in an uprising that began in 2000.
Although far from all Palestinians supported him, militants marched to back Saddam ahead of the U.S.-led invasion in March and Palestinian protesters were often heard chanting: "Oh, Saddam. Oh, Saddam. Bomb, bomb Tel Aviv".snip
Again this hatred of Jews is not something the civilized world will back away from and allow with the Bush admin. in Washington.
Link 01
Link 02
Link 03
Index of Links 2 and 3
Terrorism and hate must be overcome.
The capture of Saddam is but one feather in this hat.
Democracy will be better for the Arab people.
This is a plus for Bush in the next election.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Terrorism and hate must be overcome.
Then you should be ranting against those wishing for the death of Saddam.
Originally posted by bunge
Then you should be ranting against those wishing for the death of Saddam.
Grow up #1
#2 say something intelligent if you are going to say anything.
thanks
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Grow up #1
#2 say something intelligent if you are going to say anything.
thanks
Don't worry, my post was intelligent. There are a lot of people calling for the death of Saddam and it's pure hate. If you really think hate should end, start here. You have more influence here than you would in Iraq.
Grow up? Um, yeah, OK.
Originally posted by bunge
Don't worry, my post was intelligent. There are a lot of people calling for the death of Saddam and it's pure hate. If you really think hate should end, start here. You have more influence here than you would in Iraq.
Grow up? Um, yeah, OK.
sorry for the insults.
I am against the death penalty even for saddam.
I have been against the death penalty clearly from day one here on the forum.
I am talking about something larger than the hate of one man.
I suggest this read from Noah Feldman
After Jihad
About the Book "After Jihad"
Fellowship
11 months is a long time and our president is not the most eloquent or sophisticated man on the planet.
The U.S. captured Saddam and Osama awhile ago.
Somehow, they manage to hold them without any leaks (obviously, this is would never happen).
U.S. releases Saddam's capture before Christmas, everyone celebrates, thinks Bush is unbeatable.
A few weeks before election day, when Saddam is old news and no one cares anymore, they release news of Osama's capture. Hooray for Bush, election over.
Personally, unless this happens, I still think the election is up for grabs, but the Democrats need to start offering something substantial. Clark is a good candidate: he actually has plans. Dean seems to be running on a mantra of "I hate Bush, You hate Bush, Let's hate Bush together" which is really unappealing to those who actually care about substance in politics, not just sound bites. So hopefully there will be a Primary Miracle, and Clark will end up winning the Democratic ticket...otherwise, Bush probably will win.
Originally posted by Naderfan
Dean seems to be running on a mantra of "I hate Bush, You hate Bush, Let's hate Bush together" which is really unappealing to those who actually care about substance in politics, not just sound bites.
I don't know why you needed to say this, it is a ridiculous statement. Read anything about Dean, and you'll notice he has a lot of substance. True, he has been against the war since the beginning and has criticized bush for it. So, to some I guess this criticism comes off as simply a call to band together bush haters.
But this is not Dean's primary purpose, as is clearly evident through any amount of research. Dean is HUGE in the areas of Health Care and fiscal responsibility. For folks like me who would like the idea of health care for everyone under 25 and who strongly support health care accessibility regardless of income, Dean has a ton of substance.
Also, for folks who like fiscal responsibility, they may appreciate that at the beginning of this year, Dean's state had a budget surplus while 47 out of the 50 states were running a deficit. Maintaining a budget surplus is an absolute priority of Dean, and his record has proved this to a T. He is incredibly experienced in being fiscally responsible.
Of course, none of this even mentions the grass-roots nature of dean's campaign, and the significance of mobilizing support and funding the way his campaign has.
I would vote for Clark or Dean, I support the democratic party and I think both candidates have certain stengths, and Dean is a better fit for me. However, to suggest that Dean's campaign has no substance is just to be very misinformed.
Originally posted by groverat
If the elections were tomorrow Bush would roll Dean like a whore rolling a fat, drunk accountant at a convention in Vegas.
11 months is a long time and our president is not the most eloquent or sophisticated man on the planet.
Indeed. The problem is that at the moment the Democrat candidates are too busy piling on Dean...
It's going to be interesting to watch how the candidates try to play this. It's pretty obvious that they won't be able to change the subject for some time--the initial exuberance will give way to the trial will give way to the sentencing will give way to... And so on.
They can't make it a non-issue, since it's a HUGE issue, and the success in finding SH doesn't allow them to point to the absent and "irrelevant" OBL, since all the opposition has to do is say "Hey! Give us time. We got SH!"
They can't *really* run on the War on Terrah being a failure, since the capture of SH means that there's been progress. And pointing out the obvious issues--bombings, attacks, etc.--makes them seem as if they're hoping for bad things to happen.
Turning to the domestic is equally problematic: the economy seems to have picked up, and anything else they might point to (education problems, state budget crises, CA's impending doom) pales in comparison.
I imagine there'll be some attacks on key admin figures (notably Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice) leveled late in the game in an attempt to surround the President with scandals. Let's hope they come up with something better than "Oooh! Oooh! He got a DUI!"
I guess, in the end, I have three questions:
1) Can the Dem candidates change the subject vis a vis foreign policy?
2) Can the Dem candidates count on the 24-hour news cycle eating this story pretty quickly?
3) Can the Dem candidates change the channel to domestic issues? And if so, what do they bring up?
Cheers
Scott
I would vote for Clark or Dean
exactly. anyone who would vote for dean will be happy to vote clark if they need to. many people who will vote for clark won't vote for dean. dean is not the best canidate to give the democrats a chance in 2004.
Bush has given the Democrats a lot of potential wedge issues which, if utilized properly, could turn the election against them.
There's his utterly irresponsible management of the Federal budget. A great moral issue can be made out of the fact that the GOP's absurd profligate spending is producing a debt that will crush -- CRUSH -- our children. He's brokering what he wants today on the backs of the unborn. That's a travesty, and a potentially very potent issue.
The fact that even the recent tepid upturn in the national economy took hundreds of billions of over-stimulation by the government.
There's the "prescription drug benefit" in Medicare, which once explained to people is clearly exposed as an expensive sham that will do little to help many of the sickest of seniors, and will help push many more into HMOs.
There's the fact that he's not seeking criminal charges against Halliburton for its egregious overcharging of the American taxpayer for its actions in Iraq. Now, gee, why would Bush go soft on those crooks?
There's the fact that we've totally lost focus on the real war on terror: Afghanistan. Iraq was not part of the "War on Terror." Bush has totally dropped the ball in Afghanistan and needed an easy victory to cover his ass. Iraq, being decrepit and isolated, was that easy victory. If things do wind down there -- and I hope they do -- then the cluster $$$$ that is Bush's policy in Afghanistan will be easier to bring to light in time for the vote.
There are other issues, too. Older Democratic types. The fact that the Bush team pushed at all for a prescription drug plan for Medicare is evidence that prescription drug prices -- and, in fact, all medical costs -- in this country are absurd. The Democrats can offer something on that front.
With the nearing retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, the Democrats can also effectively play the Roe card. If Bush gets to pick a replacement for O'Connor, Roe v. Wade is dust. That issue wasn't highlighted by Gore in 2000, but it's always a surefire winner amongst educated female voters (post-grad females vote 80/20 Democratic as is, but throw Roe into peril and that number could easily rise to 90/10).
And there's the issue of lost prestige abroad. If there are more cases like the recent trial in Germany, where suspected Al Qaeda members (you remember Al Qaeda, our real enemy, before Bush dangled the chimera of the Iraqi threat before us) are let free because of US intrangsigence to share intelligence with "Old Europe" types, that could be a potent issue. Connect Bush's swaggering, arrogant, assholish treatment of our historical allies with setbacks in the war on terror.
There's the Clean Water Bill, the Clean Air Act, and all the other environmental regulations Bush has weakened. America's air will be dirtier and our water less safe to drink because of Bush. Arsenic, anyone?
This election is not over, not by a long shot. The political winds favor Bush more this week than they did last. But that's no sure indicator for next month, to say nothing of 11 months from now.
Kirk