Where to begin. . . - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

shakran · 01-22-2006, 08:31 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/22/kerry/index.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry took up top GOP political strategist Karl Rove's call to make national security a central issue in the 2006 midterm elections, vowing Sunday, "I want to have that debate every single day."

The Massachusetts Democrat, who lost to Bush in the 2004 presidential election, argued Republicans are vulnerable to a Democratic resurgence in Congress, partly because Hurricane Katrina "stripped away the veneer of competence" of the Bush administration.

Kerry's comments to ABC's "This Week" came two days after Rove -- whom President Bush called the "architect" of his 2004 victory -- told a group of fellow Republicans that Democrats are "wrong" on national security.

That argument, Rove said, should be repeated throughout the 2006 election cycle. (Full story)

Asked whether Republicans may successfully use the issue for political gain, Kerry responded, "I'm not worried in the least, and I welcome the debate. I want to have that debate, and I want to have that debate every single day."

He added, "Perhaps we didn't have that debate enough" in 2004.

"A lot has happened in the last year and a half. Katrina stripped away the veneer of competence of this administration," he said. "The curtain got pulled aside, and there's not even a wizard behind it. And they found out that these people are incompetent."

The Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina's devastation drew criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats and triggered a congressional investigation.

Kerry also pointed to the controversy over the National Security Agency's no-warrant wiretapping program.

The administration has been on the defensive since reports revealed last month that Bush authorized the NSA after the September 11, 2001, attacks to eavesdrop without a court warrant on people in the United States suspected of communicating with al Qaeda members overseas.

Rove, in his speech last week, said the move is important for national security and complained that "some important Democrats disagree."

Some Republicans have also expressed skepticism about the program's legal justification, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, plans to hold hearings about it next month.

Kerry insisted, "We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer. But we put a procedure in place to protect the constitutional rights of Americans."

If the current system -- in which a special court can approve such wiretaps, even retroactively -- is inadequate, the administration can come to Congress to approve a new law, Kerry said.

"There is a way to protect the Constitution and not go off on your own and violate it," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan hit back in a written statement Sunday evening, accusing Democrats of using "misleading and outlandish charges" to attack the eavesdropping program.

"Such irresponsible accusations will not keep us from acting to stay a step ahead of a deadly enemy that is determined to strike America again," McClellan said.

Kerry called for a special counsel to investigate, calling the issue "really typical of the way they've been managing this city -- the culture of sort of arrogance and corruption that has been allowed to take over Washington, D.C., evidenced also by the Abramoff scandal."

Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff recently pleaded guilty to a long pattern of corruption. He agreed to testify in future cases, but it's unclear how far the scandal will stretch.

Some Republicans have argued Democrats are implicated as well because some -- including Kerry -- received campaign contributions from groups that were somehow affiliated with Abramoff, though not directly from the lobbyist himself.

"That's another one of their 'Swift Boat'-style tactics where they try to throw up the mud and stick it," Kerry said, in a reference to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" who damaged Kerry's presidential bid by questioning his military record.

"I'm going to stick it right back at them. I've never met Jack Abramoff. I've never had a dime come to me from Jack Abramoff. And I'm not going to stand for them suggesting that just because someone somewhere in the country gave my campaign some money ... that we somehow are implicated.

"This is a Republican scandal," he added, pointing out that the GOP controls Congress and the White House.

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, disagreed with that assessment.

"I think it's a bipartisan scandal, because the lobbying is out of control," McCain told "Fox News Sunday," blaming "the system that prevails here on Capitol Hill" and the use of "earmarking or pork-barrel projects" in legislation.

Kerry also used the new audiotape of Osama bin Laden, which surfaced last week, to repeat his argument that the Bush administration should have captured the al Qaeda leader long ago.

"Osama bin Laden is going to die of kidney failure before he's killed by Karl Rove and his crowd," Kerry said.

Bush, Rove and other top Republicans point to the fact that there has been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001, as a sign of the administration's success in battling terrorism.

But Kerry rejected that argument, saying, "Many people surmise that one of the reasons we haven't been attacked here is because [terrorists] are being so successful at doing what they need to do to attack us in Iraq and elsewhere."

While he repeated his 2004 theme that there has been an "absence of leadership" during Bush's time in office, Kerry did not say whether he plans to run again in 2008.

He said his previous losing bid should not prevent a run, however, noting that Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan lost before eventually reaching the Oval Office.

He also noted that McCain, who lost the race for the GOP nomination in 2000, is seen as a likely contender in 2008.

"I'm going to listen to my heart and my gut," he said.

Oh man. Where to even begin.

First, let's get this out of the way. Kerry is an idiot. He lost to an incompetent fool like Bush, and he thinks he has a chance against his next opponent, who, by the law of probability, is likely to be vastly more intelligent than Bush?

And second, the republicans are at it again! "The democrats are wrong about national security" and Rove wants to repeat that over and over again in 2006. Hurry up guys! Let's scare the hell out of everyone again! It worked before, maybe it'll work again! How much you guys wanna bet we'll start getting terror threat level color changes again now that we're gonna be moving into the 06 campaign cycle?

Elphaba · 01-22-2006, 09:20 PM

I so agree with you, Shakran. Any hope Kerry may have for another presidential run is a dim hope, at best.

The incumbents will circumvent the Abramoff scandal with a new barrage of scare tactics that worked so well in the 2004 election. This time it will be the Iranian "mushroom cloud," rather than the Iraqi threat, that will cause us all to cling hopefully and submissively to our current leadership.

How many more times are these tactics going to sway the voters? Sadly, I think the answer may be "forever."

alpha phi · 01-22-2006, 09:51 PM

Kerry in 08?.....The democrats would be doomed.
As far as the scare tatics:
You can fool all the people some of the time,
Some of the people all of the time,
You can't fool all the people all the time.
Now that you mention it Elphaba,
That "Iranian Mushroom cloud" would do the trick
Or a severe recession in march
When Iran plans to switch from the US dollar standard to the Euro.
The "financial mushroom cloud"

I agree with much of what Kerry is saying.
Only I don't trust him, to say what he means
and mean what he say's.
The same with Gore's statements the other day.
To little to late.
Honestly I haven't seen any democrat worth my vote.
McCain.....maybe
I want door number three please.

djtestudo · 01-22-2006, 10:34 PM

If the Democrats want to win, they'll run someone like Joe Leiberman, who is a moderate and has obvious integrity.

So they'll be running Kerry, or maybe throw Edwards out to the wolves.

Kind of reminds me of the Maryland Democratic Party. In 2002 they tried to run the lieutenent governer of an unpopular governer on the "I'm a Kennedy and a women with no apparent political traits whatsoever" ticket, and the voters elected a Republican for the first time in thirty years. So, instead of asking themselves why they lost, they are throwing the mayor of Baltimore (severely liberal prettyboy who has done little for the city except play his guitar) and the Montgomery County executive (makes aformentioned mayor sound like Pat Buchanon) into the primary to see who sticks.

Fortunately, as a Republican I am secure in the knowledge that even though I'm outnumbered by about three-to-one I will have a lot to laugh about when the Democrats lose again (which is essentially what it is, far more then the Republicans winning in this state).

shakran · 01-23-2006, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

If the Democrats want to win, they'll run someone like Joe Leiberman, who is a moderate and has obvious integrity.

So they'll be running Kerry, or maybe throw Edwards out to the wolves.

Kind of reminds me of the Maryland Democratic Party. In 2002 they tried to run the lieutenent governer of an unpopular governer on the "I'm a Kennedy and a women with no apparent political traits whatsoever" ticket, and the voters elected a Republican for the first time in thirty years. So, instead of asking themselves why they lost, they are throwing the mayor of Baltimore (severely liberal prettyboy who has done little for the city except play his guitar) and the Montgomery County executive (makes aformentioned mayor sound like Pat Buchanon) into the primary to see who sticks.

Fortunately, as a Republican I am secure in the knowledge that even though I'm outnumbered by about three-to-one I will have a lot to laugh about when the Democrats lose again (which is essentially what it is, far more then the Republicans winning in this state).

guys, read this post three times, because djtestudo makes an excellent point.

The_Jazz · 01-23-2006, 06:49 AM

Personally, I think that Bill Richardson should be the candidate. He's a centerist, has executive experience, and he'll bring in the Hispanic vote like no one else. I spent 3 or 4 days cussing after he said no to Kerry for the VP spot.

I think that this next election cycle is going to be incredibly interesting with the corruption scandals and Katrina looming over everyone's head. If I lived in a coastal community anywhere along the Gulf or the Eastern Seaboard or in a earthquake-prone area, there's no way that I could vote Republican after the FEMA mess. If the Democrats can take advantage of that fear and promise some concrete changes, they might find some more votes. Then again, taking advantage and concrete changes have never been the national party's strong suit.

JustJess · 01-23-2006, 07:11 AM

Sometimes, I wish I were rich and 35 already.
What is so difficult about running honestly? Seriously. If you have enough money, you can be honest because you don't need anyone else's money. But the problem is... people who have that much money usually want more of it and the power that goes with it... so they're no longer honest either.

So we will, once again, have no one worth voting for. AGAIN. McCain might be okay, but it depends on whether he thinks he has to pander again to the uber-conservatives in his party, or if he can get away with being Libertarian (at least that's how it looks to me). Does that make sense?

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-23-2006, 07:46 AM

I never thought I could find myself saying this... hold on... it's coming...

With the likes of Howard Dean running the democratic party, I actually hope that Hillary Clinton gets the nod.

And it's sad, because the republicans are making it to easy for the dems, but I think the dems still have a lot of soul searching to do.

Locobot · 01-23-2006, 08:18 AM

Sounds like someone hit the "9/11" button on the Rovebot3000 again.

aceventura3 · 01-23-2006, 09:05 AM

What is the Democratic position on national defense? War in Iraq? War against terror?

Do you think Kerry knows that he or whomever the nominee is won't be running against Bush in '08? They can not win by simply saying Bush is wrong. That seems to be the only democratic message.

roachboy · 01-23-2006, 09:17 AM

i dont see anything interesting in this matter.
i think kerry is dreaming in public, and his dreaming is of no consequence.

nor do i see any particular need for the democrats to outline an anti-bush or anti-republican campaign aimed at 2008 right now.
there is no need: given the fiasco that has been the second bushterm so far, they need only stand by and watch the right self-destruct. presenting a clear alternative vision at this point would help the right by giving them something against which to stabilize their sad situation. why do it? let them implode....

if the partisan balance in congress shifts via the mid-term elections, bush could well find himself impeached for any number of reasons--the domestic spying thing appears the most likely. but this reflects mostly the twitching of the few remaining neurons that conspire to keep any faith in this degenerate political system intact on my part.

fact is that none of us know yet what will happen in the midterms, so none of us has any idea what the 2008 situation will look like....so the prognostications above, while psychologically gratifying no doubt, are not worth the space they take up.

Poppinjay · 01-23-2006, 10:24 AM

Somebody, anybody, should take Kerry aside, and say, "stop, please, just stop."

I would be fine with his nattering if he was not a going to be candidate and would make it clear that he is not. He obviously plans to be.

I miss the old days of blue collar democrats. Howard Dean has a portion of the right idea, but isn't quite getting the whole picture.

Talk to the unions about 30,000 jobs lost at Ford. Go places you might muss up your hair and get some grease on your pants. The GOP talks to these people every day, makes them all a shit sandwich, serves it to them, and they eat it up like mother's milk.

pan6467 · 01-23-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Somebody, anybody, should take Kerry aside, and say, "stop, please, just stop."

I would be fine with his nattering if he was not a going to be candidate and would make it clear that he is not. He obviously plans to be.

I miss the old days of blue collar democrats. Howard Dean has a portion of the right idea, but isn't quite getting the whole picture.

Talk to the unions about 30,000 jobs lost at Ford. Go places you might muss up your hair and get some grease on your pants. The GOP talks to these people every day, makes them all a shit sandwich, serves it to them, and they eat it up like mother's milk.

Very true Poppin..... and until we get a Democrat that does go into these places and talks to the workers and truly fights for them, not just giving lip service, the Dems will stay in the horrid shape they are in.

Willravel · 01-23-2006, 11:32 AM

All we need is one vey loud and interesting independant who can stick to his or her guns. Reps can't manage themselves, and Dems can't stop em. We need reform.

dksuddeth · 01-23-2006, 11:46 AM

ok, I accept the independent nomination for president in '08!!! thanks. =)

Willravel · 01-23-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

ok, I accept the independent nomination for president in '08!!! thanks. =)

I'd gladly vote for you!!! I suspect that you'd own Bush in the debate too.

Maybe I should elaborate on my previous post. Even if a great candidate came from obscurity into the light from either party, the BS bickering would drown out the persons qualities and skills in favor for Entertainment Tonight-esque news flashes about what he or she is wearing and what he or she thinks about Brad and Angelina. CSPAN has become reality TV in that it is something to distract you from what's important. The independant investigation for the wiretaps was heald in the basement of Congress, and all that was on CSPAN and the news was fluff. The only way for anyone qualified and able to become president is for pigs to fly, hell to freeze over, the fat lady to sing, and people actually considering voting for a third party candidate. Vote Libertarian. Vote Green. Vote Constitution. Vote Labor. Vote Natural Law. Vote Communist. Vote whatever. Just don't vote for the idiot on the left or the idiot on the right. We have to stop things like "vote or die" (P. Diddy didn't kill anyone who didn't vote) and bring dignity back to our democratic preocess. The two party system is setting fire to our home, and we're letting it burn to the ground.

SirLance · 01-23-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

If the Democrats want to win, they'll run someone like Joe Leiberman, who is a moderate and has obvious integrity.

So they'll be running Kerry, or maybe throw Edwards out to the wolves.

Fortunately, as a Republican I am secure in the knowledge that even though I'm outnumbered by about three-to-one I will have a lot to laugh about when the Democrats lose again (which is essentially what it is, far more then the Republicans winning in this state).

Here here!

As a Republican (moderate), I'd say this:

I'd seriously consider Lieberman. Also Guiliani. It would be an interesting race, wouldn't it? I think there are a number of good people out there who won't run because it's too much of a circus.

I'd also be suprised if the Dem's ran him. I think they'll run Hillary. But who knows. It sure as hell won't be Kerry.

My wife is a Democrat. So's my mother in law, and so are my parents, so when you say you're outnumbered, my response is "Yeah, tell me about it. Let's go find a bar!"

We should get rid of both parties and start over. The Dems are out of touch with the moderate majority, and the Republicans are too receptive to the far religious right.

Let's just make me King, and I'll solve all the problems. First, I'll shoot all the lawyers...

BigBen · 01-23-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Oh man. Where to even begin.

First, let's get this out of the way. Kerry is an idiot....

I would highly recommend that you do not begin there in the future. You make people take sides, you expose yourself, and only those who agree with you completely (or passionately disagree) continue to read, and then post.

Tacticians would chide you for 'showing your hand' so early. You asked where to begin, I am telling you.

Now, without killing your enemies with kindness, it is important to first recognize your opponents strength. Your discounting Kerry as an imbicile shows contempt and frustration, but little else.

Your choice of words are also at fault here. Does Kerry fit the traditional definition of "idiot"? Of course not. Look what you have done in the second instance here. You have shown your audience that you do not choose your words carefully and are quick to use euphamisms. If your opponent then attacks your wording, you are left looking foolish. You can hide behind the excuse of common language, and "everyone knew what I meant", but the damage is done sir. Your words have been discounted from this point on.

Are you trying to persuade the moderate person who has yet to choose political sides?
Are you trying to cause increased passion in your own camp by showing the ineptitude of your opponent?
Are you calling for a rebuttal from your opponent, thus creating a debate?

I must assume the answer is the second option... am I right?

Marvelous Marv · 01-23-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/22/kerry/index.html

Oh man. Where to even begin.

First, let's get this out of the way. Kerry is an idiot. He lost to an incompetent fool like Bush, and he thinks he has a chance against his next opponent, who, by the law of probability, is likely to be vastly more intelligent than Bush?

And second, the republicans are at it again! "The democrats are wrong about national security" and Rove wants to repeat that over and over again in 2006. Hurry up guys! Let's scare the hell out of everyone again! It worked before, maybe it'll work again! How much you guys wanna bet we'll start getting terror threat level color changes again now that we're gonna be moving into the 06 campaign cycle?

So should Bush ignore this, or act on it? If he should act, what do you recommend?

[Edit: Damn--put the wrong link in. Now it's fixed.]
One link of many

Quote:

New threats on bin Laden tape

January 19, 2006

BY LEE KEATH ASSOCIATED PRESS

CAIRO, Egypt-- Al-Jazeera on Thursday aired an audiotape from Osama bin Laden, who says al-Qaida is making preparations for attacks in the United States but offers a truce on "fair" but undefined conditions.

The tape's release came days after a U.S. airstrike in Pakistan that was targeting bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, and reportedly killed four leading al-Qaida figures, including possibly al-Zawahri's son-in-law. There was no mention of the attack on the segments that were broadcast.

It was the first tape from the al-Qaida leader in more than a year-- the longest period without a message since the Sept. 11 2001 suicide hijackings in the United States.

The CIA has authenticated the voice on the tape as that of bin Laden, an agency official said. The al-Qaida leader is believed to be hiding in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Al-Jazeera said the tape was recorded in the Islamic month that corresponds with December.

Bin Laden refers to an alleged comment by President Bush about bombing the Qatar headquarters of Al-Jazeera, which was first reported in the British press on Nov. 22.

He also refers indirectly to the July 7 bombings in London that killed 56 people and to poll numbers that showed a fall in Bush's popularity, as occurred in late 2005.

U.S. counterterror officials said Thursday they have seen no specific or credible intelligence to indicate an upcoming al-Qaida attack on the country.

The United States will not let up in the war on terror despite the threats on the tape, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. "We do not negotiate with terrorists," McClellan said. "We put them out of business."

While warning against downplaying the taped threat, officials at intelligence and law enforcement agencies said there has been no recent increase in "chatter" that can indicate that such an attack is imminent.

In the tape, bin Laden said he was directing his message to the American people after polls showed that "an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq but (Bush) opposed that desire."

He said insurgents were winning the conflict in Iraq and warned that security measures in the West and the United States could not prevent attacks there.

"The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of European nations," he said "The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission."

The al-Qaida leader did not spell out conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by Al-Jazeera.

"We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he said. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war.

"There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America," he said.

In an Arabic transcription of the entire tape on the Al-Jazeera Web site-- but not aired-- bin Laden makes an oblique reference to how to prevent new attacks on the United States, but does not specify if these are conditions for a truce.

Bin Laden tells Americans that "if you are sincere in your desire for peace and security, and if Bush refuses to do anything but continue lies and oppression," then he recommends Americans read a book entitled "The Rogue State," apparently a reference to a book of that title by political analyst William Blum. The book has been published in Arabic.

"In its introduction, it states: 'If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended,"' he said.

The last audiotape from bin Laden was broadcast in December 2004 by Al-Jazeera. In that recording, he endorsed Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi as his deputy in Iraq and called for a boycott of Iraqi elections.

He issued numerous tapes in 2003 and 2004, calling for Muslims to attack U.S. interests and threatening attacks against the United States.

In an April 15, 2004, audiotape, he vowed revenge against the United States for Israel's assassination of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin-- and at the same time offered a truce to European countries.

Bin Laden appeared in a video released October 2004, just ahead of U.S. presidential elections, saying the United States can avoid another Sept. 11 attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims.

Since December 2004, bin Laden's deputy in al-Qaida, al-Zawahri, has issued a number of video and audiotapes, including one claiming responsibility for the London attacks, which he said came after Europe rejected the terms of a truce al-Qaida had previously offered them.

Al-Jazeera's editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Sheik would not comment on when or where the latest tape was received. He said the full tape was 10 minutes long. The station aired excerpts with what it "considered newsworthy," he said, but would not say what was on the remainder. . .

Marvelous Marv · 01-23-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Talk to the unions about 30,000 jobs lost at Ford. Go places you might muss up your hair and get some grease on your pants. The GOP talks to these people every day, makes them all a shit sandwich, serves it to them, and they eat it up like mother's milk.

Good idea. Ask the unions why US airlines and auto manufacturers can't turn a profit, when companies like Toyota seem to be faring much better.

alpha phi · 01-23-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Good idea. Ask the unions why US airlines and auto manufacturers can't turn a profit, when companies like Toyota seem to be faring much better.

Boeing just won the largest contract the company has seen since 1997
effectively upping the GNP 4.4% for november.
The Unions will also be happy the explain how NAFTA, CAFTA, ect has
hurt the companys. Not to mention healthcare costs rising ten times inflation.
Beyond all those "real facts"
The Union (employees) don't and won't care why the companies are failing
They will care about losing their own jobs.
The employees will vote for the person who will
convince them they will fix it

Marvelous Marv · 01-23-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

Boeing just won the largest contract the company has seen since 1997
effectively upping the GNP 4.4% for november.
The Unions will also be happy the explain how NAFTA, CAFTA, ect has
hurt the companys. Not to mention healthcare costs rising ten times inflation.
Beyond all those "real facts"
The Union (employees) don't and won't care why the companies are failing
They will care about losing their own jobs.
The employees will vote for the person who will
convince them they will fix it

Boeing isn't an airline or an auto manufacturer. How many competitors does it have, one or two?

The unions also care about a great deal more than JUST their jobs. Things like closed shops, the inability to get fired, and frequently, unsustainable pensions.

Then the union members are surprised when the company bankrupts and the good times are gone.

Agreed on NAFTA though.

aceventura3 · 01-23-2006, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen

... Your discounting Kerry as an imbicile shows contempt and frustration, but little else.

Your choice of words are also at fault here. Does Kerry fit the traditional definition of "idiot"? Of course not. Look what you have done in the second instance here. You have shown your audience that you do not choose your words carefully and are quick to use euphamisms. If your opponent then attacks your wording, you are left looking foolish. You can hide behind the excuse of common language, and "everyone knew what I meant", but the damage is done sir. Your words have been discounted from this point on...

I assume you take the same position when people call Bush an "idiot", do you?

Willravel · 01-23-2006, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I assume you take the same position when people call Bush an "idiot", do you?

Check out my signature, then you decide.

BigBen · 01-24-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I assume you take the same position when people call Bush an "idiot", do you?

I do, sir.

Poppinjay · 01-24-2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Good idea. Ask the unions why US airlines and auto manufacturers can't turn a profit, when companies like Toyota seem to be faring much better.

let me re-phrase that, what I meant was that a potential democratic candidate has to talk to the union membership. The unions themselves are not the entities that vote, nor are they convincing their members adequately that the GOP is no good for them.

A democratic candidate needs to get to the places where people work for a living, and still wonder if the dream of home ownership is beyond them as housing skyrockets. He or she needs to talk to the folks who thought the Contract on America was going to make things great and ended up following it down a rabbit hole.

Willravel · 01-24-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Good idea. Ask the unions why US airlines and auto manufacturers can't turn a profit, when companies like Toyota seem to be faring much better.

Psst...Spoiler: overinflated dollar.

filtherton · 01-24-2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Boeing isn't an airline or an auto manufacturer. How many competitors does it have, one or two?

The unions also care about a great deal more than JUST their jobs. Things like closed shops, the inability to get fired, and frequently, unsustainable pensions.

Then the union members are surprised when the company bankrupts and the good times are gone.

Agreed on NAFTA though.

Bullshit. Japanese companies pay much much less in terms of healthcare for their employees. Their cars are much cheaper to produce because of this fact.

ubertuber · 01-24-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Bullshit. Japanese companies pay much much less in terms of healthcare for their employees. Their cars are much cheaper to produce because of this fact.

Wait, I'm confused. I took Marv's point to be that things that unions like drive labor costs up (though his list did not include healthcare). And then what you said backs that up, but your tone indicates you're rebutting him. Clearly I've misunderstood one of you. Can someone fill me in?

Ustwo · 01-24-2006, 12:00 PM

My nightmare is a Liberman vrs McCain race for 2008.

McCain is a camera whore who I have no faith in.

Liberman is the only Democrat who I would trust to not fark up Iraq and the war on terror.

Right now I'd honnestly give the nod to Liberman but that would depend if he had to sell his soul for the nomination by shifting left. Luckly for the Republicans, the Democratic primaries cater to the more extreme, and the lunatic fringe would never accept Liberman as is.

My dream election would be Hilary vrs Rice, but Rice won't do it

Ustwo · 01-24-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Bullshit. Japanese companies pay much much less in terms of healthcare for their employees. Their cars are much cheaper to produce because of this fact.

And amazingly higher quality. You would think for the insane costs of the UAW we could at least be making the best cars for it.

alpha phi · 01-24-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My dream election would be Hilary vrs Rice, but Rice won't do it

Wow ..... I had a dream similar to that,
only it had nothing to do with politics
and lots of jello

Bad alpha phi bad

Ustwo · 01-24-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

Wow ..... I had a dream similar to that,
only it had nothing to do with politics
and lots of jello

Thats wrong on SO many levels

NCB · 01-24-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My nightmare is a Liberman vrs McCain race for 2008.

McCain is a camera whore who I have no faith in.

Liberman is the only Democrat who I would trust to not fark up Iraq and the war on terror.

Right now I'd honnestly give the nod to Liberman but that would depend if he had to sell his soul for the nomination by shifting left. Luckly for the Republicans, the Democratic primaries cater to the more extreme, and the lunatic fringe would never accept Liberman as is.

My dream election would be Hilary vrs Rice, but Rice won't do it

Both would make decent presidents. Regretably, neither one is electable in his own party.

filtherton · 01-24-2006, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Wait, I'm confused. I took Marv's point to be that things that unions like drive labor costs up (though his list did not include healthcare). And then what you said backs that up, but your tone indicates you're rebutting him. Clearly I've misunderstood one of you. Can someone fill me in?

Well, americans pay more for healthcare than the rest of the world. Much more. Unions don't set the cost of healthcare. If america ever happens to reign in its healthcare costs it would be doing its domestic economy a huge favor.

alpha phi · 01-24-2006, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Well, americans pay more for healthcare than the rest of the world. Much more. Unions don't set the cost of healthcare. If america ever happens to reign in its healthcare costs it would be doing its domestic economy a huge favor.

So true.
The company I worked for had their (our) insurance
rates increased 200% last year,
100% the year before.
Add that strangle hold to the 45% price decrease
Chrysler demanded just to keep their buisness.
If we didn't meet Chrysler's demands;
they would take all the tooling,
and put them in a factory in China.
They pulled about 4.5 million in orders
just to show they were serious.
My company had no choice but to open a plant in Mexico,
In order to stay in buisness.
Fortunatly for the employees aerospace products
Must be built in the USA....
(as required by boeing, us goverment, macdonald douglas, ect.)

If a politician were to visit these union workers.
And make strong statments about reducing healthcare costs,
and Protecting US buisness....That politician would have 90%
of these workers votes.

ubertuber · 01-24-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Well, americans pay more for healthcare than the rest of the world. Much more. Unions don't set the cost of healthcare. If america ever happens to reign in its healthcare costs it would be doing its domestic economy a huge favor.

So, you are saying that because the cost of healthcare is high in America, this cost of labor is higher than it is in other countries, such as Japan (where an employer could pay less $$ while covering a greater % of the total healthcare cost)? And I think this implies that you believe that it is the total cost of healthcare (arrived at by providers and insurers, affected by government policy) that makes labor cost high, as you think employers should be covering healthcare costs. In other words, pushing healthcare costs onto workers to lower total labor costs (thereby allowing the product to be sold cheaper) is not part of the equation that you consider?

Is this a fair summation of where your original comment was coming from? This isn't a set-up for a threadjack or debate, I'm just making sure I'm understanding where people are coming from.

alpha phi · 01-24-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

So, you are saying that because the cost of healthcare is high in America, this cost of labor is higher than it is in other countries, such as Japan (where an employer could pay less $$ while covering a greater % of the total healthcare cost)? And I think this implies that you believe that it is the total cost of healthcare (arrived at by providers and insurers, affected by government policy) that makes labor cost high, as you think employers should be covering healthcare costs. In other words, pushing healthcare costs onto workers to lower total labor costs (thereby allowing the product to be sold cheaper) is not part of the equation that you consider?

Is this a fair summation of where your original comment was coming from? This isn't a set-up for a threadjack or debate, I'm just making sure I'm understanding where people are coming from.

Healthcare is just one piece of the puzzle
A large piece
It has increased at a rate ten times inflation
The companies can't afford to pay it anymore.
The employees can't afford to pay, and still
pay the rest of their living expenses.
It is a major problem for both.
with no clear soultion that I know of.

filtherton · 01-25-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

So, you are saying that because the cost of healthcare is high in America, this cost of labor is higher than it is in other countries, such as Japan (where an employer could pay less $$ while covering a greater % of the total healthcare cost)? And I think this implies that you believe that it is the total cost of healthcare (arrived at by providers and insurers, affected by government policy) that makes labor cost high, as you think employers should be covering healthcare costs. In other words, pushing healthcare costs onto workers to lower total labor costs (thereby allowing the product to be sold cheaper) is not part of the equation that you consider?

Is this a fair summation of where your original comment was coming from? This isn't a set-up for a threadjack or debate, I'm just making sure I'm understanding where people are coming from.

Yes, that seems about right. Certainly employers could push the costs of healthcare more onto their employees, and many of them seem to be doing so. Does that really change much, though? The cost of healthcare is still inflated, putting more of the cost on employees will just cut into their quality of life and their willingness to feed the economy through spending.

Ustwo · 02-09-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My nightmare is a Liberman vrs McCain race for 2008.

McCain is a camera whore who I have no faith in.

Liberman is the only Democrat who I would trust to not fark up Iraq and the war on terror.

Right now I'd honnestly give the nod to Liberman but that would depend if he had to sell his soul for the nomination by shifting left. Luckly for the Republicans, the Democratic primaries cater to the more extreme, and the lunatic fringe would never accept Liberman as is.

My dream election would be Hilary vrs Rice, but Rice won't do it

And welcome to the future....

Where Liberman an independent kicked out as a democrat for not being liberal enough and he has endorsed McCain for president.

Shame for the democrats they didn't find their moderate, and good for republicans if the democrats win (bad for the country of course for a while, but unavoidable.)

01-22-2006, 09:51 PM	#3 (permalink)
alpha phi seeker Location: home	Kerry in 08?.....The democrats would be doomed. As far as the scare tatics: You can fool all the people some of the time, Some of the people all of the time, You can't fool all the people all the time. Now that you mention it Elphaba, That "Iranian Mushroom cloud" would do the trick Or a severe recession in march When Iran plans to switch from the US dollar standard to the Euro. The "financial mushroom cloud" I agree with much of what Kerry is saying. Only I don't trust him, to say what he means and mean what he say's. The same with Gore's statements the other day. To little to late. Honestly I haven't seen any democrat worth my vote. McCain.....maybe I want door number three please. __________________ All ideas in this communication are sole property of the voices in my head. (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 "The Voices" (TM). All rights reserved.

01-22-2006, 10:34 PM	#4 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	If the Democrats want to win, they'll run someone like Joe Leiberman, who is a moderate and has obvious integrity. So they'll be running Kerry, or maybe throw Edwards out to the wolves. Kind of reminds me of the Maryland Democratic Party. In 2002 they tried to run the lieutenent governer of an unpopular governer on the "I'm a Kennedy and a women with no apparent political traits whatsoever" ticket, and the voters elected a Republican for the first time in thirty years. So, instead of asking themselves why they lost, they are throwing the mayor of Baltimore (severely liberal prettyboy who has done little for the city except play his guitar) and the Montgomery County executive (makes aformentioned mayor sound like Pat Buchanon) into the primary to see who sticks. Fortunately, as a Republican I am secure in the knowledge that even though I'm outnumbered by about three-to-one I will have a lot to laugh about when the Democrats lose again (which is essentially what it is, far more then the Republicans winning in this state). __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

01-23-2006, 07:11 AM	#7 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	Sometimes, I wish I were rich and 35 already. What is so difficult about running honestly? Seriously. If you have enough money, you can be honest because you don't need anyone else's money. But the problem is... people who have that much money usually want more of it and the power that goes with it... so they're no longer honest either. So we will, once again, have no one worth voting for. AGAIN. McCain might be okay, but it depends on whether he thinks he has to pander again to the uber-conservatives in his party, or if he can get away with being Libertarian (at least that's how it looks to me). Does that make sense? __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

01-23-2006, 07:46 AM	#8 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I never thought I could find myself saying this... hold on... it's coming... With the likes of Howard Dean running the democratic party, I actually hope that Hillary Clinton gets the nod. And it's sad, because the republicans are making it to easy for the dems, but I think the dems still have a lot of soul searching to do. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-23-2006, 09:05 AM	#10 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	What is the Democratic position on national defense? War in Iraq? War against terror? Do you think Kerry knows that he or whomever the nominee is won't be running against Bush in '08? They can not win by simply saying Bush is wrong. That seems to be the only democratic message. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

01-22-2006, 09:20 PM	#2 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I so agree with you, Shakran. Any hope Kerry may have for another presidential run is a dim hope, at best. The incumbents will circumvent the Abramoff scandal with a new barrage of scare tactics that worked so well in the 2004 election. This time it will be the Iranian "mushroom cloud," rather than the Iraqi threat, that will cause us all to cling hopefully and submissively to our current leadership. How many more times are these tactics going to sway the voters? Sadly, I think the answer may be "forever."

01-23-2006, 06:49 AM	#6 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Personally, I think that Bill Richardson should be the candidate. He's a centerist, has executive experience, and he'll bring in the Hispanic vote like no one else. I spent 3 or 4 days cussing after he said no to Kerry for the VP spot. I think that this next election cycle is going to be incredibly interesting with the corruption scandals and Katrina looming over everyone's head. If I lived in a coastal community anywhere along the Gulf or the Eastern Seaboard or in a earthquake-prone area, there's no way that I could vote Republican after the FEMA mess. If the Democrats can take advantage of that fear and promise some concrete changes, they might find some more votes. Then again, taking advantage and concrete changes have never been the national party's strong suit.

01-23-2006, 08:18 AM	#9 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Sounds like someone hit the "9/11" button on the Rovebot3000 again.

01-23-2006, 09:17 AM	#11 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont see anything interesting in this matter. i think kerry is dreaming in public, and his dreaming is of no consequence. nor do i see any particular need for the democrats to outline an anti-bush or anti-republican campaign aimed at 2008 right now. there is no need: given the fiasco that has been the second bushterm so far, they need only stand by and watch the right self-destruct. presenting a clear alternative vision at this point would help the right by giving them something against which to stabilize their sad situation. why do it? let them implode.... if the partisan balance in congress shifts via the mid-term elections, bush could well find himself impeached for any number of reasons--the domestic spying thing appears the most likely. but this reflects mostly the twitching of the few remaining neurons that conspire to keep any faith in this degenerate political system intact on my part. fact is that none of us know yet what will happen in the midterms, so none of us has any idea what the 2008 situation will look like....so the prognostications above, while psychologically gratifying no doubt, are not worth the space they take up. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-23-2006, 10:24 AM	#12 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Somebody, anybody, should take Kerry aside, and say, "stop, please, just stop." I would be fine with his nattering if he was not a going to be candidate and would make it clear that he is not. He obviously plans to be. I miss the old days of blue collar democrats. Howard Dean has a portion of the right idea, but isn't quite getting the whole picture. Talk to the unions about 30,000 jobs lost at Ford. Go places you might muss up your hair and get some grease on your pants. The GOP talks to these people every day, makes them all a shit sandwich, serves it to them, and they eat it up like mother's milk. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

01-23-2006, 11:32 AM	#14 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	All we need is one vey loud and interesting independant who can stick to his or her guns. Reps can't manage themselves, and Dems can't stop em. We need reform.

01-23-2006, 11:46 AM	#15 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	ok, I accept the independent nomination for president in '08!!! thanks. =) __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-24-2006, 12:00 PM	#30 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	My nightmare is a Liberman vrs McCain race for 2008. McCain is a camera whore who I have no faith in. Liberman is the only Democrat who I would trust to not fark up Iraq and the war on terror. Right now I'd honnestly give the nod to Liberman but that would depend if he had to sell his soul for the nomination by shifting left. Luckly for the Republicans, the Democratic primaries cater to the more extreme, and the lunatic fringe would never accept Liberman as is. My dream election would be Hilary vrs Rice, but Rice won't do it __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.