Clinton vs. Bush Poll Results & Is it Time for Al Gore to Run & Win Again? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 05-13-2006, 06:00 AM

CNN is out with this story, and you can vote in their Clinton vs. Bush honesty poll:

Quote:

Which man was more honest as president, President Bush, or President Clinton ? Results...so far.... Clinton leads in the more honest POTUS category, 38000 to 13200 votes for Bush!

Didn't Clinton lie in a sworn deposition....wasn't he only the second POTUS to be impeached in the house....for high crimes and misdemeanors ???

Link to story and to poll: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/...oll/index.html

Quote:

Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

Friday, May 12, 2006; Posted: 10:41 p.m. EDT (02:41 GMT)
(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.....

Clinton's VP, Al Gore won the national popular vote, by more than one million votes, in Nov., 2000, even before people got to experience what a Bush presidency could do for (to) them, and the country.....is Al Gore saying the right things, since then...to attract an even greater plurality of votes if he decides to run again, in 2008?

A timely Gore interview, on the eve of the release of his new movie !

Quote:

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
Al Revere An interview with accidental movie star Al Gore
By David Roberts
09 May 2006
Al Gore is on the campaign trail again, and he actually seems to be enjoying it......In the years since his dramatic "loss" in 2000, he has, largely under the media radar, been practicing a form of retail politics: traveling the globe with a computer slideshow on global warming, educating small crowds, trying to boost the public profile of the problem through sheer force of door-to-door persistence.

At one of those presentations, Hollywood producer Laurie David was in the audience. Galvanized, she recruited a team of producers, filmmakers, and philanthropists, and together they persuaded Gore to star in a documentary based on his climate slideshow. Deadwood producer Davis Guggenheim was brought on to direct, and the movie was done in little over a year.......

.....Now, as anticipation builds for the May 24 wide release of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore is squarely back in the public eye. Despite denials from Gore's camp, rumors of a 2008 presidential run are rampant. Grist met with Gore during his recent stay in Seattle and found him hale, jovial, and relaxed -- a man invigorated.....

....and there are more signs.... http://draftgore2008.org/

....and this, in tomorrow's LA Times:

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...ck=1&cset=true
In the heat of the moment
Global warming gets Al Gore fired up again, and a new documentary testifies to his long-standing passion.
By Tina Daunt, Times Staff Writer
May 14, 2006

...........Gore's quest is the subject of a new documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," which opens here on May 24. His almost-professorial plea to save the planet finds him center stage once again. The straightforward but quietly devastating film is a long way from Michael Moore, and the issue it raises isn't in the forefront of the public's concerns, but many expect it to have a significant effect on the public consciousness.

Meanwhile, some of Hollywood's top politicos have been lobbying him privately to run for president in 2008, raising the tantalizing possibility of a Clinton-Gore showdown. For the record Gore, 58, says he's not interested — at least not at the moment.

Regardless of whether he enters the race, or closes the door to politics forever, the former vice president has clearly found an issue that gives him purpose like no other. Audiences may well walk out of theaters not only compelled to do something about the environment but impressed by a Gore they've rarely seen. Onstage, and in the documentary, he displays a side of himself that never came across during his presidential race: affable, funny, passionate and — at times — vulnerable.

"It's hard to describe it in a way that doesn't sound excessive, but the issue of global warming is something that's always with me," he said recently over breakfast at the Regency Hotel in New York City. "You feel like you are entrusted with a very important message that you have to deliver."..............

Quote:

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_...19201266832588
Think about it. Do you really want a President who says things like <a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2006/01/16/al_gores_speech_january_16_2006.php">this:</a>

Quote:

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. They recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

or <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0807-15.htm">this:</a>

Quote:

Here is the pattern that I see: the President's mishandling of and selective use of the best evidence available on the threat posed by Iraq is pretty much the same as the way he intentionally distorted the best available evidence on climate change, and rejected the best available evidence on the threat posed to America's economy by his tax and budget proposals.

In each case, the President seems to have been pursuing policies chosen in advance of the facts -- policies designed to benefit friends and supporters -- and has used tactics that deprived the American people of any opportunity to effectively subject his arguments to the kind of informed scrutiny that is essential in our system of checks and balances.

The administration has developed a highly effective propaganda machine to imbed in the public mind mythologies that grow out of the one central doctrine that all of the special interests agree on, which -- in its purest form -- is that government is very bad and should be done away with as much as possible -- except the parts of it that redirect money through big contracts to industries that have won their way into the inner circle.

For the same reasons they push the impression that government is bad, they also promote the myth that there really is no such thing as the public interest. What's important to them is private interests. And what they really mean is that those who have a lot of wealth should be left alone, rather than be called upon to reinvest in society through taxes......

........The administration hastened from the beginning to persuade us that defending America against terror cannot be done without seriously abridging the protections of the Constitution for American citizens, up to and including an asserted right to place them in a form of limbo totally beyond the authority of our courts. And that view is both wrong and fundamentally un-American.

But the most urgent need for new oversight of the Executive Branch and the restoration of checks and balances is in the realm of our security, where the Administration is asking that we accept a whole cluster of new myths:

For example, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was an effort to strike a bargain between states possessing nuclear weapons and all others who had pledged to refrain from developing them. This administration has rejected it and now, incredibly, wants to embark on a new program to build a brand new generation of smaller (and it hopes, more usable) nuclear bombs. In my opinion, this would be true madness -- and the point of no return to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- even as we and our allies are trying to prevent a nuclear testing breakout by North Korea and Iran.....

Al Gore already demontrated that he could win, once. IMO, he seems like a good choice to rehabilitate the presidency, open government with integrity, a responsible foreign policy and restoration of respect for the U.S. in the world community, draft environmental and energy policies that are responsible and in synch with the concerns of the rest of the world and the majority of scientists, and the restoration of science itself, over religion and myth.

Gore brings experience, he knows how to make smaller government, fair taxation policies, and will lessen tensions in the middle east and in the broader muslim world, to lower the chances that we will "get hit" again, and this should appeal to conservatives who are not religious fundamentalists.
Bush's performance makes the Clinton legacy and a Gore candidacy look stellar, in contrast, IMO! Bring 'em on !!!

SecretMethod70 · 05-13-2006, 06:29 AM

Interesting thought, but do you really think Al Gore would consider running again? Maybe after 8 years he's gotten over the loss, but he seemed pretty done with political office afterwards. Can't say I've paid much attention to what he's been doing since - and the fact that I could get away with not noticing much from him says something.

maximusveritas · 05-13-2006, 09:28 AM

Yeah, I don't think he wants to run again. He never really liked campaigning in the first place. I know he agreed to do some work for the upcoming election, helping out some of our candidates, but he only did that reluctantly. Also considering he ran away from Clinton in the 2000 election, I'm not sure if he can go back and start embracing him now.

If you really want a candidate who'll continue the Clinton legacy and get us back to the good old days, why not Hillary? Not only is her last name Clinton, but she'll have the man himself right next to her, helping her out as "First Spouse". The slogan "Two for the price of one" would work well this time, at least unofficially. And isn't it time for a female President anyway?

To be honest, she's not my first choice, but there's certainly a good argument for her.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-13-2006, 09:50 AM

Gore’s supper serial about man bear pig right now, he may run after he has defeated it…

But seriously I’d still vote for gore, if he ran, basically I’d vote for any change in government, if I thought Nader could win, I’d vote Nader, I don’t like how this government is getting more and more draconian.

As for the trustworthy bit, yes, Clinton did lie under sworn testimony, but, I still feel like it was his own business and not ours, who he gets a hummer from is between him and his wife. I feel like he was honest about matters of state, unlike president bush.

Willravel · 05-13-2006, 10:20 AM

We need a green or indi president to have any real change. We need someone outside of the influence of corporations, espically war contractors. Republicans are powerless to stop their leadership, Democrats can't muster any kind of counter attack. We need someone unexpected to enter the ring and show everyone how it's realy done. Could Gore have done that back in 2000? It's entirely possible. He is a brilliant man and forward thinking. Had 9/11 even happened while Gore was on watch (which it might not have), we would have seen a completly different response. Gore strikes me as someone who would work with as many of our allies as possible. Can you imagine if 9/11 would have brought the world together instead of splintering it apart? That'd be an interesting reality to live in. I wasn't old enough to vote in the 2000 election, but I probably woud have voted for Gore. Probably.

Who is more trust worthy? Clinton lies about nailing the fat chick vs. Bush lies about secret wire tapping of Americans, he lies about reasons to go to war with another country that was not a danger to the US in any way, shape, or form, and he lies about Iran developing nuclear weapons. Jee...whos' lie(s) hurt more people? Who's lies rape our constitution? Who's lies kill innocent civilians? Who's lies are headed in the direction (if not already arrived at) a police state?

I know Clinton wasn't perfect. There were some botched military operations, and some people did die, but he never led us to war. Clinton's lies were more like that of a teenager caught cheating on his girlfriend. "What? I wouldn't touch her!"

samcol · 05-13-2006, 02:43 PM

All I see from the Democrats is anti-Bush rhetoric while at the same time many of them vote right along with the Republicans in regards to the wars, draconian legislation, and outrageous spending. Gore really has nothing to offer and the complicity of the Democrats makes a 3rd party candidate my only choice for 08.

What is there to gain by voting more of the same in? He's not going to reverse any of the damage done to the Constitution or the push for one branch (executive) control. The only appeal a Democrat has to me is that all these neo-cons who love Bush's agenda will suddenly wake up and question the powers Gore inherited just because they hate liberals.

:sigh: the voting system is so comprimised I dunno if voting is even that significant anymore. 00 and 04 were pretty sketchy, maybe they won't even bother to hold an 08 election due to bird flu, or 'terrorists'.

Seaver · 05-13-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

he lies about reasons to go to war with another country that was not a danger to the US in any way, shape, or form, and he lies about Iran developing nuclear weapons.

I'm sorry. What?

Bush lies about going to war? Fine, Clinton/Gore/Kerry/everyone in the UN lied about it to then.

Bush lies about Iran developing nukes? Fine, even though it's the UN who are saying it, not Bush.

filtherton · 05-13-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I'm sorry. What?

Bush lies about going to war? Fine, Clinton/Gore/Kerry/everyone in the UN lied about it to then.

Actually, Clinton/Gore/ most everyone in the UN didn't go to war. They certainly didn't cook the books and ignore any evidence that didn't support the notion that saddam had WMD. They certainly didn't go into iraq with too few troops, regardless of the fact that they had been told by certain military people that they needed more troops. They didn't play up a link between iraq and obl that they knew didn't exist. They didn't claim that we would be treated as liberators or imply that the length of the conflict would be six days, six weeks, six months. There are so many ways bush and co lied about iraq.

Seaver · 05-13-2006, 04:19 PM

Quote:

hey certainly didn't cook the books and ignore any evidence that didn't support the notion that saddam had WMD.

Cook the books? Am I goign to have to dig up the countless speaches by the UN Security Council, Gore/Clinton/Kerry/Leiberman/etc gave on how dangerous Saddam was and how there was no doubt he had WMDs?

samcol · 05-13-2006, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Cook the books? Am I goign to have to dig up the countless speaches by the UN Security Council, Gore/Clinton/Kerry/Leiberman/etc gave on how dangerous Saddam was and how there was no doubt he had WMDs?

Exactly the reason why no one should vote for a democrat such as a Clinton or Gore in 08, as well as any Republican.

Willravel · 05-13-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I'm sorry. What?

Bush lies about going to war? Fine, Clinton/Gore/Kerry/everyone in the UN lied about it to then.

So those were UN troops invading Iraq? I must have been confused by all the US flags on their uniforms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Bush lies about Iran developing nukes? Fine, even though it's the UN who are saying it, not Bush.

Yes, Bush would never say that Iran is developing nuclear arms. On top of the the Bush administration would never plan to attack a country who they don't say is developing nuclear weapons.

Quote:

Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, US President George W Bush said.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/...fx2561016.html

Quote:

PLANS are under way for a massive bombing strike on sites where Iran is believed to be enriching uranium before President George W Bush leaves office in less than three years’ time.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...125564,00.html

Quote:

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

Elphaba · 05-13-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Exactly the reason why no one should vote for a democrat such as a Clinton or Gore in 08, as well as any Republican.

I think the only solution is for the dems to take control of congress, and the repubs keep the senate. Nothing good has ever come from one party being in control of both houses and the executive branch. Our two parties, pathetic as they seem to be, are far better than either one in full charge.

I am an independent and I would favor the knight in shining armor that could win the house outside of our two parties. I am also a realist and understand how important it is to at least regain two party control in 2006.

filtherton · 05-13-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Cook the books? Am I goign to have to dig up the countless speaches by the UN Security Council, Gore/Clinton/Kerry/Leiberman/etc gave on how dangerous Saddam was and how there was no doubt he had WMDs?

Well, i don't know what you consider cooking the books, but apparently, bush and co did everything they could to ignore any evidence that iraq didn't have wmd. They had access to more intelligence in the run up to war than any of the other folks you mention. So by all means, dig up your quotes. There's a difference between not knowing any better and not wanting to know any better.

host · 05-13-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Cook the books? Am I goign to have to dig up the countless speaches by the UN Security Council, Gore/Clinton/Kerry/Leiberman/etc gave on how dangerous Saddam was and how there was no doubt he had WMDs?

Just once, Seaver...bring it on! Sen. Pat Roberts has avoided an honest, timely report of the Bush admin. "treatment" of intellignce that it received before the invasion of Iraq by carving his senate committee's report, first into two phases, to avoid a pre-2004 election disclosure of the issue to the public. Last fall, the democrats staged a protest in the senate to publicize the fact that Roberts never finished Phase 2 of the intelligence report. Now, as I document below, Roberts is at it again, dividing Phase 2 into pieces, to avoid disclosure before the 2006 election. I documented below that the Robb Silberman Commission said, last March 31, (2005) "Second, we were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community." I also documented Media Matters examples of false reporting that the Bush administration's handling ofintelligence was somehow "cleared" in the reports of those two committees.
We don't know where you get your information, Seaver; you don't tell us. This is not an even playing field.
Please back your statements, as I've done here, with quotes from Lieberman and Cheney in 2000, and Tenet and Powell in 2001, and Cheney's hysterical, March 16, 2003 "nuclear threat" statement. What a change from his Oct., 2000 VP debate statement....a change based on.....what ??? We don't know...because the Bush administration blocked three Commissions from looking into the issue...including the 9/11 commission. The statements, combined with the obvious, consistant effort to avoid disclosure of how they handled the intelligence, is pretty damning, don't you think?

If you disagree, Seaver, document why. Explain why the three investigations have never reported on this, to close the matter of whether or not Bush, Cheney, et al, lied about the justification for invading and occupying Iraq!
You would think that Bush and Cheney would want to be cleared of accusations that they lied us into an avoidable war and that they scapegoated and destroyed the CIA in the process.

Seaver, Cheney's end of October, 2000 opinion of the threat from Iraq is located in the middle of the page at:

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/deb...s/u221005.html
THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: The Vice-Presidential Debate
Excerpts From the Debate Between the Vice-Presidential Candidates

October 6, 2000

Abstract: Excerpts from vice-presidential debate in Danville, Ky, between Sen Joseph I Lieberman and Dick Cheney (L)

Following are excerpts from the vice-presidential debate last night in Danville, Ky., between Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Dick Cheney, as recorded by The New York Times. The moderator was Bernard Shaw of CNN.

MR. SHAW This question is for you, Mr. Secretary. If Iraq's President Saddam Hussein were found to be developing weapons of mass destruction, Governor Bush has said he would "take him out." Would you agree with such a deadly policy?

MR. CHENEY We might have no other choice. We'll have to see if that happens. The thing about Iraq, of course, was at the end of the war we had pretty well decimated their military. We had put them back in a box, so to speak. We had a strong international coalition raid against them, effective economic sanctions and a very robust inspection regime that was in place. So that the inspection regime under U.N. auspices was able to do a good job of stripping out the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction -- the work that he'd been doing that had not been destroyed during the war on biological, chemical agents as well as a nuclear program. Unfortunately, now we find ourselves in a situation where that's started to fray on us, where the coalition now no longer is tied tightly together.

Recently the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, two Gulf states, have reopened diplomatic relations with Baghdad. The Russians and the French now are flying commercial airliners back into Baghdad and sort of thumbing their nose, if you will, at the international sanctions regime. And of course the U.N. inspectors have been kicked out. And there's been absolutely no response.

So we're in a situation today where I think our posture vis-s-vis Iraq is weaker than it was at the end of the war. I think that's unfortunate. I also think it's unfortunate that we find ourselves in a position where we don't know for sure what might be transpiring inside Iraq.

I certainly hope he's not regenerating that kind of capability. But if he were, if in fact Saddam Hussein were taking steps to try to rebuild nuclear capability or weapons of mass destruction, you'd have to give very serious consideration to military action to stop that activity. I don't think you can afford to have a man like Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons, say, in the Middle East.

MR. SHAW Senator.

MR. LIEBERMAN Bernie, it would, of course, be a very serious situation if we had evidence, credible evidence, that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. But I must say I don't think a political campaign is the occasion to declare exactly what we would do in that case. I think that's a matter of such critical national security importance that it ought to be left to those commander in chief, the leaders of the military, the secretary of state to make that kind of decision without the heat of a political campaign.

The fact is that we will not enjoy real stability in the Middle East until Saddam Hussein is gone. The gulf war was a great victory. And incidentally, Al Gore and I were two of the ten Democrats in the Senate who crossed party lines to support President Bush and Secretary Cheney in that war, and we're both very proud that we did that.

But the war did not end with a total victory and Saddam Hussein remained there. And as a result we have had almost 10 years now of instability. We have continued to operate, almost all of this time, military action to enforce a no-fly zone. We have been struggling with Saddam about the inspectors. We ought to do, and we are doing everything we can, to get those inspectors back in there.

But in the end, there's not going to be peace until he goes. And that's why I was proud to co-sponsor the Iraq Liberation Act with Senator Trent Lott, why I have kept in touch with the indigenous Iraqi opposition broad based to Saddam Hussein. Vice President Gore met with them earlier this year. We are supporting them in their efforts and we will continue to support them until the Iraqi people rise up and do what the people of Serbia have done in the last few days, get rid of a despot. We will welcome you back into the family of nations where you belong.

Quote:

http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_...an_jun2000.htm
Unclassified Report to Congress
on the Acquisition of Technology
Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Advanced Conventional Munitions,
1 January Through 30 June 2000

.....We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely. We assess that since the suspension of UN inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months. Without an inspection monitoring program, however, it is more difficult to determine if Iraq has done so.....

Quote:

http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/publish...y/me0224b.html
February 2001
Remarks by
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
and Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa
Ittihadiya Palace

.......but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue..........

and....if you will....here's the lie....on March 15, 2003, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq:

Quote:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel...etthepress.htm
NBC News
MEET THE PRESS
Sunday, March 16, 2003
GUEST: Vice President DICK CHENEY
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert - NBC News

What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We’ve got, again, a long record here. It’s not as though this is a fresh issue. In the late ’70s, Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear reactors from the French. 1981, the Israelis took out the Osirak reactor and stopped his nuclear weapons development at the time. Throughout the ’80s, he mounted a new effort. I was told when I was defense secretary before the Gulf War that he was eight to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. And we found out after the Gulf War that he was within one or two years of having a nuclear weapon because he had a massive effort under way that involved four or five different technologies for enriching uranium to produce fissile material.

We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past....

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...r.iraq.claims/
Did the Bush Administration exaggerate the threat from Iraq?

By Wolf Blitzer
CNN
Tuesday, July 8, 2003 Posted: 6:29 PM EDT (2229 GMT)

Washington (CNN) -- It was perhaps the most compelling reason for the U.S. to go to war against Saddam Hussein -- namely that he was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. But that allegation has now come back to embarrass the President.

The White House now acknowledges President Bush should never have said this in his State of the Union address in January:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

That's in part because the British government itself has now backed away from that assertion.

What's clear now is that earlier intelligence reports suggesting Saddam Hussein's regime was attempting to obtain uranium from the African nation of Niger were based on false information, including forged documents.

But what's even more embarrassing to Bush administration officials is that the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department had themselves earlier concluded the Niger uranium reports were almost certainly not true.

Former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger in February 2002 -- eleven months before the President's State of the Union Address -- to investigate the allegations.

"I traveled there, spent eight days out there, and concluded that it was impossible that this sort of transaction could be done clandestinely," Wilson told CNN.

Two months after the President's address to Congress, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and went further than the president in alleging Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program.

"He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons," Cheney said.

The White House has now released a statement acknowledging the Niger documents were forged but insisting there were other intelligence reports at the time suggesting Iraq was indeed attempting to acquire uranium from other countries in Africa. Still, the White House says, those reports were not specific.

"Because of this lack of specificity, this reporting alone did not rise to the level of inclusion in a presidential speech. That said, the issue of Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium from abroad was not an element underpinning the judgment reached by most intelligence agencies that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," the statement said.

Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, says this issue reinforces the need for a formal inquiry -- why as late as the President's State of the Union address, the President was "still using information which the intelligence community knew was almost certainly false."

Seaver. made you've read "garbage....misinformation" of the type that is described here:

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511030004
Thu, Nov 3, 2005 10:55am EST

Boot, Kondracke falsely suggested Bush administration has been cleared of manipulating Iraq intelligence....

Is this how a loyal senate committee chairman works to clear his president of charges that he lied us into war? Does it help Bush's credibitlity that Sen. Roberts wants to again, "divide out" the portion of his Intel Committee's report that could clear the POTUS's good name? It's only 22 months overdue, now!

Quote:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/expo...506/news4.html

Sen. Roberts seeks delay of Intel probe
By Alexander Bolton

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said he wants to divide his panel’s inquiry into the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq-related intelligence into two parts, a move that would push off its most politically controversial elements to a later time.

The inquiry has dragged on for more than two years, a slow pace that prompted Democrats to force the Senate into an extraordinary closed-door session in November. Republicans then promised to speed up the probe.....

Quote:

http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#overview
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT, MARCH 31, 2005
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS

.......Finally, we emphasize two points about the scope of this Commission's charter, particularly with respect to the Iraq question. First, we were not asked to determine whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That was the mandate of the Iraq Survey Group; our mission is to investigate the reasons why the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments were so different from what the Iraq Survey Group found after the war. Second, we were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information.

We've done the "hard work" of documenting the administration's lies and the coverup designed to shield the president. We can justify saying that Bush and Cheney lied us into an avoidable and costly war. The actions of Sen. Roberts and the marching orders from the Bush admiinstration that the Robb-Silberman commission abided by, are damning to Bush and Cheney's integrity, as well. It's not six months after Iraq was invaded, anymore Seaver. it's 26 months. There were no WMD, the president lied about that, and won't let a responsible commission or senate committee issue a report about the lies. The pre-invasion statements and the lack of any WMD say it all Seaver.

1010011010 · 05-13-2006, 07:20 PM

Bush hasn't lied when he has a legal liability. This makes him more honest than Clinton.
Sure. In Christian Nationalist Land, perhaps.

scout · 05-14-2006, 03:10 AM

I believe the scariest thing about the next election is the Democrats will nominate the most liberal, let's kiss the worlds ass anti-gun, anti-anything truly American nut they can find and force me to vote a straight Republican ticket one more time. Geeez when will they learn .....

Willravel · 05-14-2006, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

I believe the scariest thing about the next election is the Democrats will nominate the most liberal, let's kiss the worlds ass anti-gun, anti-anything truly American nut they can find and force me to vote a straight Republican ticket one more time. Geeez when will they learn .....

Vote indi....come to the dark side. There aren't two choices, there are many. There is no reason to ever vote Republican again. Look at all the third parties out there. Besides, would you rather have a hippie as a president, or someone who is going to lead to the destruction of our society and the deaths of thousands, if not millions of innocent civilians?

host · 05-14-2006, 11:04 AM

scout and willravel, stop "dicking around" with distractions, like 3rd parties, 2nd amendment rights, or "oooohhhh!!!" he or she is tooooo liberal or toooo conservative !! In the present climate, those concerns are parochial....they are luxuries that we can no longer afford. There just isn't time....anymore.

We need restoration of checks and balances, now! We need trade and budget deficit management, a sane foreign policy, and military spending that isn't sucked dry by the Wilkes, Wades, Cunninghams, Foggos, and Jerry Lewises. We need the K Street Project/Abramoff- lobbyists paying to write the legislation that congress then rubber stamps, GONE.....now!

We need open government, and the end to rampant partisan cronyism in appointments to high positions, NOW!

FEMA has been destroyed by crony appointments, the CIA is a gutted shell with no leadership or veteran management....republican hacks replaced them when they resigned or were force out. The NSA is badly damaged, and DHS is an effing joke:

Quote:

http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticle...TopStoriesMore
The DHS chief's coattails extend to the administration's highest levels

By Jason McLure
Legal Times
January 23, 2006

.....On Jan. 4, President George W. Bush granted a recess appointment to Julie Myers, making the 36-year-old former Chertoff chief of staff the head of Homeland Security’s 15,000-employee Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

........Myers fit the bill. Nominated to become head of the federal government’s second-largest investigative agency, Myers had virtually no experience in immigration policy and a thin record of management of any sort. (Myers was unavailable for an interview. A spokesman for her office issued a statement saying, “She has great respect for Michael Chertoff and is extremely proud of her work with him.”)..........

........If Myers’ credentials aren’t impeccable, her connections certainly are. She is the niece of Gen. Richard Myers, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Upon taking the helm at the DHS, Chertoff tapped her then-fiance (now husband), John Wood, who was once an aide to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, to be his chief of staff.

Read the rest of the article, most of the other lawyers Chertoff has hired, come from his former lawfirm, Latham & Watkins....here's one:

Quote:

• Philip Perry: The career of the son-in-law of Vice President Dick Cheney has in many ways mirrored Chertoff’s over the past decade. Also a former partner at Latham & Watkins, he worked on the Whitewater investigation with Chertoff and joined the DOJ after Bush’s election in 2000. After stints at the Office of Management and Budget and back at Latham, Perry joined Chertoff at the DHS last year as the department’s general counsel.

Sorry guys....by the time an opposition candidate comes along that is "just right".....middle-o-the-road, NRA member, third party....we won't have a recognizable country left to live in!

This isn't about democrats vs. republicans. It is about QUICKLY electing people who can WIN! In 2006, and in 2008! At first, they have to be democrats because one house of congress has to shift to democrats next january. But....they can't be democrats like this:

Quote:

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/...d=161556&rfi=6
Lieberman highlights small contributions, but benefited most from bundles, big checks, and stepped-up PAC giving
By Don Michak, Journal Inquirer
05/09/2006

Executives at ChoicePoint Inc. - which bought the company whose list Florida officials used to prevent thousands from voting in the 2000 presidential election - were among the biggest contributors to U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's re-election campaign from January to March, records show.

Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000 who often quips that he actually was elected despite the bitterly disputed Florida results, reported to the Federal Election Commission that over a two-week period in March he collected a total of $11,700 from 14 ChoicePoint officials, only one of whom resides in Connecticut.

Lieberman is the ranking Democrat on the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

ChoicePoint is a giant data collection company that began by selling credit data to the insurance industry and now is among the private companies that "increasingly occupy a place in homeland security and crime-fighting efforts," according to the Washington Post.

The suburban Atlanta company in January agreed to pay a record $10 million fine and an additional $5 million to consumers to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations after a security breach of its computer databases led to at least 800 cases of identity theft.

It also is at the center of a continuing controversy in Congress over privacy rights and federal "data mining."

We are waking up to a new crisis now. It is the new Corporatism, AKA Fascism:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051100539.html
By Barton Gellman and Arshad Mohammed
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A01

The new report, by contrast, described a far broader form of surveillance, focused primarily on domestic phone-call records. Some of its elements have been disclosed before. The Los Angeles Times reported in December that AT&T provided the NSA with a "direct hookup" into a company database, code-named Daytona, that has been recording the telephone numbers and duration of every call placed on the AT&T network since 2001. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T over that and other alleged violations of privacy law, said the call database spans 312 terabytes, a quantity that would fill more than 400,000 computer compact discs....

These bastards proudly display this on their own website:

Quote:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=7
......... <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22269-2005Jan19_4.html">Reprinted with permission from washingtonpost.com</a> and The Washington Post.

It began in 1997 as a company that sold credit data to the insurance industry. But over the next seven years, as it acquired dozens of other companies, Alpharetta, Ga.-based ChoicePoint Inc. became an all-purpose commercial source of personal information about Americans, with billions of details about their homes, cars, relatives, criminal records and other aspects of their lives.

As its dossier grew, so did the number of ChoicePoint's government and corporate clients, jumping from 1,000 to more than 50,000 today. Company stock once worth about $500 million ballooned to $4.1 billion.

Now the little-known information industry giant is transforming itself into a private intelligence service for national security and law enforcement tasks. It is snapping up a host of companies, some of them in the Washington area, that produce sophisticated computer tools for analyzing and sharing records in ChoicePoint's immense storehouses. In financial papers, the company itself says it provides "actionable intelligence."

"We do act as an intelligence agency, gathering data, applying analytics," said company vice president James A. Zimbardi.

<h3>ChoicePoint and other private companies increasingly occupy a special place in homeland security and crime-fighting efforts, in part because they can compile information and use it in ways government officials sometimes cannot because of privacy and information laws.</h3>

ChoicePoint renewed and expanded a contract with the Justice Department in the fall of 2001. Since then, the company and one of its leading competitors, LexisNexis Group, have also signed contracts with the Central Intelligence Agency to provide public records online, according to newly released documents. .........

Guys...this is what we have to begin to stop, on election day, this November, if it isn't too late already....you can only help by voting for democrats who aren't bought by the corporatist complex....that has to be your only criteria, if you ever want to vote in a multi party election, again...it is that bad, IMO!

Quote:

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=502&row=0
Friday, May 12, 2006
by Greg Palast

I know you're shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that George Bush is listening in on all your phone calls. Without a warrant. That's nothing. And it's not news.

This is: the snooping into your phone bill is just the snout of the pig of a strange, lucrative link-up between the Administration's Homeland Security spy network and private companies operating beyond the reach of the laws meant to protect us from our government. You can call it the privatization of the FBI -- though it is better described as the creation of a private KGB.

The leader in the field of what is called "data mining," is a company called, "ChoicePoint, Inc," which has sucked up over a billion dollars in national security contracts.

Worried about Dick Cheney listening in Sunday on your call to Mom? That ain't nothing. You should be more concerned that they are linking this info to your medical records, your bill purchases and your entire personal profile including, not incidentally, your voting registration. Five years ago, I discovered that ChoicePoint had already gathered 16 billion data files on Americans -- and I know they've expanded their ops at an explosive rate.

They are paid to keep an eye on you -- because the FBI can't. For the government to collect this stuff is against the law unless you're suspected of a crime. (The law in question is the Constitution.) But ChoicePoint can collect it for "commercial" purchases -- and under the Bush Administration's suspect reading of the Patriot Act -- our domestic spying apparatchiks can then BUY the info from ChoicePoint.

Who ARE these guys selling George Bush a piece of you?

ChoicePoint's board has more Republicans than a Palm Beach country club. It was funded, and its board stocked, by such Republican sugar daddies as billionaires Bernie Marcus and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52998-2004May24.html">Ken Langone</a> -- even after Langone was charged by the Securities Exchange Commission with abuse of inside information.

I first ran across these guys in 2000 in Florida when our Guardian/BBC team discovered the list of 94,000 "felons" that Katherine Harris had ordered removed from Florida's voter rolls before the election. Virtually every voter purged was innocent of any crime except, in most cases, Voting While Black. Who came up with this electoral hit list that gave Bush the White House? ChoicePoint, Inc.

And worse, they KNEW the racially-tainted list of felons was bogus. And when we caught them, they lied about it. While they've since apologized to the NAACP, ChoicePoint's ethnic cleansing of voter rolls has been amply rewarded by the man the company elected.

And now ChoicePoint and George Bush want your blood. Forget your phone bill. ChoicePoint, a sickened executive of the company told us in confidence, "hope[s] to build a database of DNA samples from every person in the United States ...linked to all the other information held by CP [ChoicePoint]" from medical to voting records.

And ChoicePoint lied about that too. The company publicly denied they gave DNA to the Feds -- but then told our investigator, pretending to seek work, that ChoicePoint was "the number one" provider of DNA info to the FBI.

"And that scares the hell out of me," said the executive (who has since left the company), because ChoicePoint gets it WRONG so often. We are not contracting out our Homeland Security to James Bond here. It's more like Austin Powers, Inc. Besides the 97% error rate in finding Florida "felons," Illinois State Police fired the company after discovering ChoicePoint had produced test "results" on rape case evidence ... that didn't exist. And ChoicePoint just got hit with the largest fine in Federal Trade Commission history for letting identity thieves purchase 145,000 credit card records.

But it won't stop, despite Republican senators shedding big crocodile tears about "surveillance" of innocent Americans. That's because FEAR is a lucrative business -- not just for ChoicePoint, but for firms such as Syntech, Sybase and Lockheed-Martin -- each of which has provided lucrative posts or profits to connected Republicans including former Total Information Awareness chief John Poindexter (Syntech), Marvin Bush (Sybase) and Lynn Cheney (Lockheed-Martin).

But how can they get Americans to give up our personal files, our phone logs, our DNA and our rights? Easy. Fear sells better than sex -- and they want you to be afraid. Back to today's New York Times, page 28: "Wider Use of DNA Lists is Urged in Fighting Crime." And who is providing the technology? It comes, says the Times, from the work done on using DNA fragments to identity victims of the September 11 attack. And who did that job (for $12 million, no bid)? ChoicePoint, Inc. Which is NOT mentioned by the Times.

"Genetic surveillance would thus shift from the individual [the alleged criminal] to the family," says the Times -- which will require, of course, a national DNA database of NON-criminals.

It doesn't end there. Turn to the same newspaper, page 23, with a story about a weird new law passed by the state of Georgia to fight illegal immigration. Every single employer and government agency will be required to match citizen or worker data against national databases to affirm citizenship. It won't stop illegal border crossing, but hey, someone's going to make big bucks on selling data. And guess what local boy owns the data mine? ChoicePoint, Inc., of Alpharetta, Georgia.

The knuckleheads at the Times don't put the three stories together because the real players aren't in the press releases their reporters re-write.

But that's the Fear Industry for you. You aren't safer from terrorists or criminals or "felon" voters. But the national wallet is several billion dollars lighter and the Bill of Rights is a couple amendments shorter.

And that's their program. They get the data mine -- and we get the shaft.

host · 05-14-2006, 11:45 AM

Another "Kenny Boy". Notice how they can't just mind their own business....running a major retail store chain. No...they gotta run us, as well.
For their own profit....into Corporatism, into the ground. Our constitution is just something for them to get around...on us...and then hide behind:

This "business man" owns
$45 million of <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=cps">CPS stock</a>, and $640 million of <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=hd">HD stock</a>.
He's a director of both these Corps.... and he makes money off of an "end run" around the 4th amendment that is a scam designed to illegally know everything about every one of us, and thus...control all of us
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/49/668.html

Here's a list of the folks who are making money, selling our 4th amendment protected, private information to our government security agencies, so that they can better control all of us....including, according to Greg Palast, our party affiliation from our voting records, our medical records, and our DNA. They get paid to gather and sell information to the NSA and the FBI that these agencies cannot legally obtain without a judge signing a search warrant. Study the names at this link, learn as much as you can about them.
It's only fair.....They sell everything that they know about you!

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=CPS

This is corporatism....corporatism is fascism:

Quote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=CPS
ChoicePoint, Inc. provides identification and credential verification services. It operates through four groups: Insurance Services, Business Services, Government Services, and Marketing Services......

The company’s Business Services group offers employment background screenings and drug testing administration services, public filing searches, vital record services, tenant screening services, credential verification, due diligence information, uniform commercial code searches and filings, authentication services, mortgage fraud credentialing services, and people and shareholder locator information services. Its Government Services group provides DNA identification services, public filing searches, credential verification, data visualization, analytics, visualization and link analysis software, and data integration services.

Vote for people who haven't made money in the 9/11 aftermath...please!
But....vote for people who can win an election.

samcol · 05-14-2006, 12:43 PM

Bush is and the Republicans are the worst ever so we MUST elect Democrats in order to survive. I don't buy it for one second. I refuse to vote for either of these two parties on the federal level. For one if Democrats were standing up to half of what Bush has been doing we wouldn't be in this grave situation, and secondly I don't agree with a the liberal ideology anyway. So why should I vote for them regardless of how much I disklike the vast majority of the GOP.

There're are some good Democrats like you say, and good Republicans as well. Al Gore and company aren't going to restore any 'checks and balances' and they are just as corporatly controlled as the other party.

host · 05-14-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Bush is and the Republicans are the worst ever so we MUST elect Democrats in order to survive. I don't buy it for one second. I refuse to vote for either of these two parties on the federal level. For one if Democrats were standing up to half of what Bush has been doing we wouldn't be in this grave situation, and secondly I don't agree with a the liberal ideology anyway. So why should I vote for them regardless of how much I disklike the vast majority of the GOP.

There're are some good Democrats like you say, and good Republicans as well. Al Gore and company aren't going to restore any 'checks and balances' and they are just as corporatly controlled as the other party.

name a "good" republican....someone who objected vocally in the press and voted agains the huge deficit spending and the secretive, intrusive government policies....or anti consumer bills like "Bankrupcy Reform" and the medicare prescription "benefit" plan. Name someone who represents the majority of working class Americans in his district, or in his state.

Here's one....he's gone....forced out by Hastert and Frist:

Can you name anyone with a similar record who is republican and is still in congress?

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111159,00.html
Retiring Senator Stood Up for Principles
Thursday, February 12, 2004
By Radley Balko

.......Fitzgerald showed some admirable backbone there, too. He was the only senator in the U.S. Congress to vote against the $15 billion airline bailout, despite the fact that United Airlines is based in Illinois and American Airlines has a major hub at O’Hare.

Fitzgerald next earned the wrath of fellow Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, a fellow Republican and probably the most powerful politician in Illinois, if not the country. Fitzgerald and Hastert first tangled over Fitzgerald’s refusal to support Hastert’s efforts to secure a glut of federal funding for the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, located in Illinois. Hastert pulled rank to secure the money, and Fitzgerald criticized him publicly for it.

Fitzgerald then refused sign a letter written by the Illinois’ congressional delegation to President Bush, which requested the White House’s help in securing federal dollars (read: pork) for the state. Fitzgerald infuriated his colleagues when he wrote in a reply, “the mere fact that a project is located somewhere in Illinois does not mean that it is inherently meritorious and necessarily worthy of support.”

One can only guess that Speaker Hastert’s disgust with Fitzgerald stems from Fitzgerald’s principled refusal to play a game Hastert himself has mastered — wasting taxpayer dollars on needless home-district pork barrel projects. The state of Illinois has 19 congressional districts. According to the Washington Post, Hastert’s district — the 14th — gets a whopping 43 percent of the federal dollars that go to Illinois. This despite that the 14th is one of the richest districts in the state, and is home to just 5 percent of the state’s population. The Post also reports that nearly one-third of that money — about $5 million — will go to Northern Illinois University, where Hastert earned his graduate degree.

Sen. Fitzgerald’s final sin was to nominate someone outside the state of Illinois to serve as U.S. Attorney for the northern district of Illinois, based in Chicago. In a 2002 hit piece on Fitzgerald, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Steve Neal scolded, “[t]he junior senator doesn't think that anyone who voted for him is qualified to sit in the U.S. attorney's chair on South Dearborn Street.”

Well, not quite. Instead of rewarding an aspiring local attorney for his political support with the nomination, as is custom in the U.S. Senate, Fitzgerald was more concerned about the ongoing investigation of then-governor and fellow Republican George Ryan, and wanted to be sure an aggressive prosecutor independent of local politics was assigned to the case. So he went out of state and nominated prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation), who indicted Ryan on corruption charges last December.............

Peter Fitzgerald was responsible for putting Patrick Fitzgerald in the position where he could be appointed special counsel to investigate the Plame leak.

One more time...democrats chair no congressional committees. They have no power to call a hearing, subpoena a single witness, or pass a bill out of committee, much less into law. If you voted against all democratic party candidates in 2000, and in 2004, you helped make this happen. If you are a "conservative", what do you support in the current growth of government spending....and the Corporatism today, vs. the unprecedented, slower spending growth and budget surpluses under Clinton's policies? What is it that could be worse under democrats. What harm would restoration on one house of congress, to democratic majority cause? The benefit would be immediate restoration of some checks and balances that do not exist at all today!

cj2112 · 05-14-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

scout and willravel, stop "dicking around" with distractions, like 3rd parties, 2nd amendment rights, or "oooohhhh!!!" he or she is tooooo liberal or toooo conservative !! In the present climate, those concerns are parochial....they are luxuries that we can no longer afford. There just isn't time....anymore.

We need restoration of checks and balances, now! We need trade and budget deficit management, a sane foreign policy, and military spending that isn't sucked dry by the Wilkes, Wades, Cunninghams, Foggos, and Jerry Lewises. We need the K Street Project/Abramoff- lobbyists paying to write the legislation that congress then rubber stamps, GONE.....now!

We need open government, and the end to rampant partisan cronyism in appointments to high positions, NOW!

FEMA has been destroyed by crony appointments, the CIA is a gutted shell with no leadership or veteran management....republican hacks replaced them when they resigned or were force out. The NSA is badly damaged, and DHS is an effing joke:

Read the rest of the article, most of the other lawyers Chertoff has hired, come from his former lawfirm, Latham & Watkins....here's one:

Sorry guys....by the time an opposition candidate comes along that is "just right".....middle-o-the-road, NRA member, third party....we won't have a recognizable country left to live in!

This isn't about democrats vs. republicans. It is about QUICKLY electing people who can WIN! In 2006, and in 2008! At first, they have to be democrats because one house of congress has to shift to democrats next january. But....they can't be democrats like this:

We are waking up to a new crisis now. It is the new Corporatism, AKA Fascism:

These bastards proudly display this on their own website:

Guys...this is what we have to begin to stop, on election day, this November, if it isn't too late already....you can only help by voting for democrats who aren't bought by the corporatist complex....that has to be your only criteria, if you ever want to vote in a multi party election, again...it is that bad, IMO!

Yes of course, because electing a democrat is MUCH more important than electing somebody who will actually make a stand for our constitutional rights

samcol · 05-14-2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

name a "good" republican....someone who objected vocally in the press and voted agains the huge deficit spending and the secretive, intrusive government policies....or anti consumer bills like "Bankrupcy Reform" and the medicare prescription "benefit" plan. Name someone who represents the majority of working class Americans in his district, or in his state.

Here's one....he's gone....forced out by Hastert and Frist:

Can you name anyone with a similar record who is republican and is still in congress?

Peter Fitzgerald was responsible for putting Patrick Fitzgerald in the position where he could be appointed special counsel to investigate the Plame leak.

One more time...democrats chair no congressional committees. They have no power to call a hearing, subpoena a single witness, or pass a bill out of committee, much less into law. If you voted against all democratic party candidates in 2000, and in 2004, you helped make this happen. If you are a "conservative", what do you support in the current growth of government spending....and the Corporatism today, vs. the unprecedented, slower spending growth and budget surpluses under Clinton's policies? What is it that could be worse under democrats. What harm would restoration on one house of congress, to democratic majority cause? The benefit would be immediate restoration of some checks and balances that do not exist at all today!

I am a conservative and I don't support any of the outrageous spending and growth of government. That's why I didn't vote for Republicans in 00 or 04. I voted mostly Libertarian.

The talk of Clinton's sound fiscal policy is a joke at best. So many of his loving followers, who also love the welfare programs like SS and medicare, fail to mention or realize that he robbed Social Security to pull off the surplus. This is what I am talking about when I refuse to vote for Democrats. The very party (not that Republicans are exempt from this) that holds Social Security at the pinnacle of political achivement, has STOLEN money from it to appear like they have carried out a sound fiscal policy. Why should I vote for Gore again?

As far as good Republicans there is Ron Paul (R) from Texas. He even was speaking out against the war in Iraq before it was convinient and has been voting against all the draconian legislation.

Quote:

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT WAR IN IRAQ

Sept. 3, 2002

As Congress reconvenes this week, the possibility of war with Iraq looms larger than ever. I believe the Constitution clearly requires a declaration of war by Congress before a military invasion of Iraq can take place. I also believe that Congress and the American people need to engage in a sober and thorough debate over the wisdom of such an invasion before we commit our young soldiers to a new war in Iraq. At a minimum, the following questions should be carefully considered:

Why do so many knowledgeable military experts, including former generals Anthony Zinni, Brent Scowcroft, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Colin Powell, caution against war in Iraq? These men understand the geopolitics and military realities of Iraq and the Middle East from their service during the first Bush administration. Are the brilliant military minds of a decade ago suddenly irrelevant? Note that those who actually have experienced war are the most reluctant to call for war, in stark contrast to the mostly non-veteran pundits clamoring to "take Saddam out."

Is Iraq a real danger to us, or have the war hawks wildly exaggerated the threat posed by this impoverished third-world nation?

Do you personally feel strongly enough about Iraq to leave your home, family, and job to join the war? If you are beyond the age of military service, would you want your children or grandchildren to do the same? After Pearl Harbor, almost all Americans would have answered yes to this question, but do we really have the same national unity and clear sense of purpose when it comes to Iraq?

What would you give up at home to provide the billions of dollars necessary to prosecute the war? Would you support a huge tax increase, or give up your Social Security benefits for a decade? I know many Americans would be happy to sacrifice, but we should be honest about what this war might cost us and judge whether it’s worth it.

Everyone wants a regime change in Iraq, but who exactly will replace Hussein? Will we support a handpicked successor who later turns on us, much like bin Laden did after we funded his resistance to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? Remember that the Kurds, our supposed friends in northern Iraq, have fundamentalist factions that are aligned with bin Laden and are allegedly hiding al Qaeda. We risk replacing the secular Hussein regime with a more fundamentalist Kurd regime that hates western values.

How long will we be in Iraq after Saddam Hussein is ousted? Will we be nation-building for decades, as we almost certainly will be in Afghanistan? We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes made in Korea and Vietnam by entering another conflict without clear objectives and a definite exit strategy.

Does an invasion of Iraq play into bin Laden’s hands by turning the entire Islamic world against us? Will an Iraq war expand into a Middle East war against Israel? Will Islamic terrorists mount attacks in America and around the world to protest the war?

If we are justified in attacking Iraq, what about the dozens of other countries that pose much more of a threat to us? Why aren’t the war hawks calling for an invasion of Iran or especially Saudi Arabia, which harbored most of the September 11th terrorists?

With American forces stretched thin in the Middle East and the administration preoccupied, will China take the opportunity to invade Taiwan? Will India and Pakistan engage in a full-fledged war? Will adversaries like Russia consider us weakened and move against us?

Finally, do the American people, and not just a handful of advisors to the President, really want this war?

All of these questions, and many more, need to be asked and answered in a full and robust congressional debate.

Here's one of him talking about the deficits: The Ever-Growing Federal Budget
Speaking out against National ID card: Paul Denounces National ID Card
Medicare: Republican Socialism
Of course Fox News won't allow any real republicans to get on TV and talk, so the good ones are forced to rely on the congressional records and weekly articles.

Sorry I just don't buy into the lesser of two evils thinking. I only vote for the best possible candidate I can find. No Gore in 08 for me.

samcol · 05-14-2006, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj2112

Yes of course, because electing a democrat is MUCH more important than electing somebody who will actually make a stand for our constitutional rights

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. What do the Democrats offer me over a 3rd party candidate other than 'not-GOP'? Instead I can vote 'not-GOP' and vote for someone I like all at the same time.

Willravel · 05-14-2006, 02:12 PM

The reason that no third party has a chance is because no one thinks they can win. That very catch 22 is what is damning the US, andf the rest of the world. Kerry wanted to stay in Iraq, even after finding out that there were no WMDs and no al Qaeda links ro Iraq. Why should I have to vote for him just to keep Bush out of office? If everyone in the US suddenly woke up and realized that there are notr two, buyt dozens of political parties, and voted as such, the Republican stranglehold on our country would be a memory.

But it's true that talking about who to vote for now is a moot point. There is damage that has already been done. Thousands of soldiers lie dead in the wake of inhuman decisions made by selfish cowards. Millions of phone records are open and are being reviewd illegally by covert agenies who only answer to one man...and that one man only has his own interests in mind. A country burns and is torn apart, with another one in our sights. It's time to begin the impeachment of POTUS, VPOTUS, members of the House and Senate, Justice department officials, DoD agents and officials, CIA operatives and officials, NSAoperatives and officials, and a slew of others who either took an active or passive role in laying waste to the Constitution and the American trust.

host · 05-14-2006, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj2112

Yes of course, because electing a democrat is MUCH more important than electing somebody who will actually make a stand for our constitutional rights

Anybody can cut and paste another member's statement and add a one sentence question below it, as you did....

Please share your proposal for a reasonable likelihood of wresting control of one house of congress from the republican majority, by any other means than voting for democratic candidates who campaign for offices now held by republicans, and by voting for incumbant democrats. I don't see an alternative that isn't clouded by idealism or is realistic. Change my mind...but don't tell me that there is any priority greater than removing republicans from control of one house of congress, ASAP. There will be no hearings, no changes, no accountability until a change in control happens. Your disdain for democrats is not misplaced. Now, however, they are our last best hope...the lesser of two evils, at this time.

Divide the hold on power, fragment it...give the democrats some means to challenge, expose, and circumvent the republicans, then....back some alternative candidates...after the 2008 presidential election, then vote for whoever you think will best represent you. But.....now...the immediate goal must be to fragment the power concentration of republicans in Washington.

cj2112 · 05-14-2006, 02:25 PM

The lesser of two evils is STILL evil, make a stand for what you actually believe in, rather than vote for a different form of evil. The reason third party politics aren't successful is because people are too focused on believing they can't be successful.

djtestudo · 05-14-2006, 05:53 PM

You could make a serious, legitimate argument that there are no good Republicans OR good Democrats, because the "good" people either get screwed by the bad ones or refuse to allow themselves to be corrupted by the process of getting and staying elected.

In other words, no one we can vote for is worth voting for. I will now self-immolate in my own cynicism.

Of course, if I survive, you could all write-in votes for me...

Elphaba · 05-14-2006, 07:24 PM

dj, if you have survived self-immolation, you have my vote.

host · 05-14-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj2112

The lesser of two evils is STILL evil, make a stand for what you actually believe in, rather than vote for a different form of evil. The reason third party politics aren't successful is because people are too focused on believing they can't be successful.

So your choice is to simply leave the republicans in charge, with no opposition party in a position to check, balance, or conduct any investigations into misconduct, or even to block the passage of any bill, or executive edict......
until your so far unidentified, third party challengers can win future elections and assume a majority or a coalition in one of the congressional houses, or win a presidential election.

What went so terribly wrong, during the 8 years of the Clinton/Gore administration....in terms of fiscal or domestic policy, foreign policy, or in the management of government, that you can specify, that rules out voting in a democratic majority as soon as this november, just in one house of congress?

What was so negative? Was it the late 90's federal budget surplus, the effort to declassify all government documents that no longer justify a secret classiification? Was it the reduction during the Clinton years, of the actual number of civilian federal employees? Was it the $257 million defense budget in 2000 that still allowed "Clinton's military's projected force in Afghanistan and in "Shock and Awe" in Iraq, very convincingly, within 26 months from when his term ended? Was it the effect of Clinton era spending reductions on the CIA? Is the CIA in better or worse shape to perform it's intelligence gathering role now...or in Jan., 2001? Is the military stronger now that spending has doubled...is it more "ready"?

Was the Clinton administration corrupt? The Starr report, after an eight year and $110 million probe of every republican accusation against Clinton, from Waco to Watergate to travel gate, to the FBI files....determined that no one could be charged with breaking the law. Was it the controversial end of term Clinton pardons? Scooter Libby was pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich's lawyer and testified before congress, after the pardon, that he believed in Rich's innocense.

No democrat received money or perks directly from Jack Abramoff. Democratic party affiliated senators can hardly be called "tools" of Corporatism, judging by their voting records, as republicans clearly can be:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/memb...zip=&x=40&y=10

If politics is about representing the people instead of selling votes to corporate lobbyssts, the list and scores at the link above, speak volumes.
Your tax money and $500 billion a year in new debt that you are responsible for, as an American, is now going for tax cuts for the richest one percent and for "no bid" federal contracts to Halliburton and ChoicePoint, to name just a few connected corporations.

FEMA was a basket case once before, after the first Bush administration in '93:
1997:Conservatice Cato Institute blasts the cost of a well run, responsive FEMA
http://www.cato.org/dailys/2-19-97.html

May 2005, Wa Po reports that FEMA 2004 generous hurricane relief was related to the upcoming 2004 election:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051802076.html

2006: Fla Sun-Sentinel Newspaper investigates FEMA payouts from '04 - '06
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sfl...a-news-utility

2006: Bipartisan Group of US Senators calls FEMA Hopeless
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...604280493/1009

How about the federal budget deficit record, from 1961 to 2001?

Quote:

http://sideshow.me.uk/annex/JustForTheRecord.htm

In Part I [Wednesday, October 16, 2002], I looked at Budget Deficits:

Just for the Record

From FY1962 (the first Kennedy budget) through FY2001 (the last Clinton budget) presidents have prepared forty budgets. Control of the White House was evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats with each party preparing and submitting twenty budgets. We decided to take a look at the fiscal performance of the Federal government during that period. The measurement we used was budget deficits and surpluses. We wanted to control for inflation to make the comparisons meaningful. Fortunately, the Government Printing Office publishes such information on the web. We got our data here at table 1-3. All dollars are adjusted for inflation and are expressed as 1996 dollars......
.....Summary

The twenty years of budgets prepared by Republican presidents increased the national debt by $3.8 trillion. The average yearly deficit under Republican budgets was $190 billion.

The twenty years of budgets prepared by Democratic presidents increased the national debt by $719.5 billion. The average yearly deficit under Democratic budgets was $36 billion.

In Part II [Thursday, October 24, 2002], I looked at the increase in non-defense Federal Government employees

Just for the Record Part II

In 1961, under the last Eisenhower budget, there were 782,000 executive branch, non-defense employees in the Federal Government. By the end of 2001 that number had risen to 1,151,000 employees. That is an increase of 369,000 employees or a 47% increase over the 40 year period.

We decided to determine in which presidential terms that increase occurred. In order to do so, we looked at the years 1962 through 2001. We assigned credit or blame to an administration for the years for which it submitted a budget. Thus, for our purposes, the Kennedy term runs from 1962-1965. The Johnson term runs from 1966-1969 etc. We got our data here at table 17-1.

........Carter 1978-1981

During the Carter years, the number of non-defense federal employees dropped by 14,000.

Reagan 1982-1989
In the Reagan years, the federal workforce increased by 3,000 employees.

Bush 1990-1993
Under George Herbert Walker Bush, the number of non-defense government employees increased from 1,162,000 to 1,256,000 for a gain of 94,000 employees.

Clinton 1993-2001
During the Clinton years the number of non-defense government employees fell from 1,256,000 to 1,151,000 for a decrease of 105,000 employees.

Conclusion
Under the 20 years of Republican administrations the number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000.

Under the 20 years of Democratic administrations, the number of non-defense government employees rose by 59,000.

Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.

So...what is the aversion to an Al Gore 2008 candidacy, or to democratic candidate challenges to incumbant republican congressional seats in the election this November? Do democrats spend too much money, engage in budget busting spending and creat a larger government? Are they too corrupt, too secretive? That wasn't their record in the eight year, Clinton presidency....quite the opposite!What is your aversion motivated by?

Is your aversion to voting with the intent of of turning the majority of just one house of congress over to democrats, starting in Jan., 2007 more about the past performance of democrats...their spending ....corruption ....secrecy ....veracity.... preservation of military readiness and intelligence gatherin and analysis, fair representation of the interests of ordinary people vs. those of corporations and the most affluent.....or is it about "feelings"?

Are you willing to examine whether your opinion is primarily influenced by facts or feeling? If you are......post documentation to back your fact based opinions. If your opinion is more about "feelings", then maybe you should consider posting in another venue. But please stop posting unsubstantiated statements. It just isn't fair for you to regurgitate undocumented talking points and feelings here anymore.

Take stock of how much of what you believe...what you react to...might be propaganda fueled "feelings" and not based on the facts. Remember how you reacted to this "news"...in 2001??? Turns out....it was an "Op",,,not news:

Quote:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1
No truth in White House vandal scandal, GSA reports

By DAVID GOLDSTEIN - The Kansas City Star
Date: 05/17/01 22:15

WASHINGTON -- The General Services Administration has found that the White House vandalism flap earlier this year was a flop.

The agency concluded that departing members of the Clinton administration had not trashed the place during the presidential transition, as unidentified aides to President Bush and other critics had insisted.

Responding to a request from Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, who asked for an investigation, the GSA found that nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. .....

I sincerely want to discuss issues with folks here who are informed with the facts. Trouble is...I don't encounter many. It would be encouraging to find that you could back up what you post, but your just not motivated to do so.
Is that what it is? Or...have you allowed "news" like my last example, to trigger "feelings" that shape your political opinions?

There's too much at stake to let things continue until you feel "good" about who is running to unseat the republicans who run the government in Washington....

Willravel · 05-14-2006, 08:44 PM

Whu vote Dem if the Republicans are just going to rig the election and get away with it? Voting is useless. Impeachment is the answer.

scout · 05-15-2006, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

......

There's too much at stake to let things continue until you feel "good" about who is running to unseat the republicans who run the government in Washington....

So my friend if there is so much at stake please persuade your party back to the middle and give me someone other than Al Gore to vote for.

I haven't heard any Democrats stand up and say if they was elected they would work to repeal the Patriot Act. Yet half of what most Democrats whine about was made possible through the Patriot Act.

I haven't heard any Democrats stand up and say if they are elected they would work to turn the boys loose over in Iraq and get it over with and bring them home. Enough of this pussy footing around over there let's get it done, there's enough fire-power over there to get the job done we just aren't utilizing it properly.

I haven't heard any solutions on Iran mentioned by any top Democrats. What's up with that?

I haven't heard the Democrats stand up and demand answers on our high gas even though we have more gas and oil in stockpiles than we have had in 20 years.

I haven't heard any top Democrats come out on illegal immigration and any plans to seal off our southern border. All I heard from Kennedy is more amnesty bullshit.

I could go on and on. To be fair no Republicans are saying much about any of the above either. From my viewpoint standing here in the heartland looking at Washington all I see is more of the same shit just a different day. And you want me to vote for a liberal let's outlaw all the guns because I invented the internet and I'll sign the Kyoto Treaty Al Gore just to have more of the same shit and lose a few more of my basic rights. Tell me my friend, what will be different other than a renewed assault on my 2nd amendment rights? To be fair under the current adminstration all my other rights have been assualted with the passage of the Patriot Act but the Democrats let that happen. Instead of filibustering on something worthwhile like the Patriot Act they chose the Supreme Court nominees which was a losing battle from the start.

You want my vote, get back to the middle ground and give me someone to vote for.

host · 05-15-2006, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

So my friend if there is so much at stake please persuade your party back to the middle and give me someone other than Al Gore to vote for.

I haven't heard any Democrats stand up and say if they was elected they would work to repeal the Patriot Act. Yet half of what most Democrats whine about was made possible through the Patriot Act.

I haven't heard any Democrats stand up and say if they are elected they would work to turn the boys loose over in Iraq and get it over with and bring them home. Enough of this pussy footing around over there let's get it done, there's enough fire-power over there to get the job done we just aren't utilizing it properly.

I haven't heard any solutions on Iran mentioned by any top Democrats. What's up with that?

I haven't heard the Democrats stand up and demand answers on our high gas even though we have more gas and oil in stockpiles than we have had in 20 years.

I haven't heard any top Democrats come out on illegal immigration and any plans to seal off our southern border. All I heard from Kennedy is more amnesty bullshit.

I could go on and on. To be fair no Republicans are saying much about any of the above either. From my viewpoint standing here in the heartland looking at Washington all I see is more of the same shit just a different day. And you want me to vote for a liberal let's outlaw all the guns because I invented the internet and I'll sign the Kyoto Treaty Al Gore just to have more of the same shit and lose a few more of my basic rights. Tell me my friend, what will be different other than a renewed assault on my 2nd amendment rights? To be fair under the current adminstration all my other rights have been assualted with the passage of the Patriot Act but the Democrats let that happen. Instead of filibustering on something worthwhile like the Patriot Act they chose the Supreme Court nominees which was a losing battle from the start.

You want my vote, get back to the middle ground and give me someone to vote for.

I've tried to respond to your questions, <a href="http://scandal.atspace.com/democrat.html">HERE</a>, scout, FWIW....

Note that almost all of the 138 congressfolk and 10 senators who voted against the final version of Patriot II were democrats...their names are all displayed on the linked page.....

191 house democrats voted to take the most punitive stance to deal with illegal immigrants, last December. even after "Sensenbrenner (R) himself tried to remove the felony provisions from his bill". The recently rejected senate version was a compromise of bills by McCain and Kennedy.

Anyway...please read it....there is a party position on Iraq, and on Energy, and former Sec'ty of State Albrights advice to Bush on the next steps to take with regard to Iran.

Please answer one question.....where are the democrats "to the left"...or not more "in the middle".....compared to what?? On what issues?? It can't be on overall spending...or on growth of government.....or on backing the CIA or the military.....can it??? Please explain why you are so reluctant to vote for the candidates of a party with a proven record...going back 20 to 40 years...that is fairer and better than the republican record. Is your reluctance all about the BJ and the stained dress....is that it???

djtestudo · 05-15-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

dj, if you have survived self-immolation, you have my vote.

The sad thing is, if I actually ran (as an independent, as despite my present affiliation I doubt the Republicans would support me), I think ther would be a lot of people that would SAY I have their vote, but wouldn't do it.

Then again, if you get the silent majority riled up enough, especially since I am a Democrat's worst nightmare (a young moderate-conservative Republican who might potantially be pissed off enough at everyone to attempt to do something about it), something could very easily happen.

DJ for President in 2020 (When I'll be 37

)!

Elphaba · 05-15-2006, 05:20 PM

If you can return to the Republican roots of conservative fiscal policy, I'll be there, walker and all. (When I'll be 76

)

djtestudo · 05-15-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

If you can return to the Republican roots of conservative fiscal policy, I'll be there, walker and all. (When I'll be 76

)

Slashing wasteful programs.

Lowering taxes.

Simplifying taxes.

Limiting aid.

Protecting borders (immigration-wise, economy-wise, and defense-wise).

Following the Constitution completely.

I've got it all!

host · 05-15-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Slashing wasteful programs.

Lowering taxes.

Simplifying taxes.

Limiting aid.

Protecting borders (immigration-wise, economy-wise, and defense-wise).

Following the Constitution completely.

I've got it all!

djtestudo....in view of the fact that there was a $5 trillion dollar deficit to pare down with late 90's budget surpluses, why didn't Clinton's budgeting, taxation, declining civilain government staff levels, welfare reform, sub $300 billion defense spending, which resulted in the military readiness and capabilities that prevailed in Afghanistan and against Saddam's forces in Iraq,
along with a much closer adherence to contitutional restraints and respect for the rights of U.S. residents.....by default, and in comparison to the spending and deficits achieved by Reagan and Bush '41.....influence you into supporting democrats, instead of republicans? What prevents you from considering throwing your support for a Gore 2008 candidacy, or for the election of the democratic congressional candidate in your district, in November?

scout · 05-16-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I've tried to respond to your questions, <a href="http://scandal.atspace.com/democrat.html">HERE</a>, scout, FWIW....

Note that almost all of the 138 congressfolk and 10 senators who voted against the final version of Patriot II were democrats...their names are all displayed on the linked page.....

191 house democrats voted to take the most punitive stance to deal with illegal immigrants, last December. even after "Sensenbrenner (R) himself tried to remove the felony provisions from his bill". The recently rejected senate version was a compromise of bills by McCain and Kennedy.

Anyway...please read it....there is a party position on Iraq, and on Energy, and former Sec'ty of State Albrights advice to Bush on the next steps to take with regard to Iran.

Please answer one question.....where are the democrats "to the left"...or not more "in the middle".....compared to what?? On what issues?? It can't be on overall spending...or on growth of government.....or on backing the CIA or the military.....can it??? Please explain why you are so reluctant to vote for the candidates of a party with a proven record...going back 20 to 40 years...that is fairer and better than the republican record. Is your reluctance all about the BJ and the stained dress....is that it???

Thanks my friend for your response. I guess we will have to see what happens when election time rolls around and what kind of platform and who the nominee elect for the Democrats happens to be. Time will tell !

djtestudo · 05-16-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

djtestudo....in view of the fact that there was a $5 trillion dollar deficit to pare down with late 90's budget surpluses, why didn't Clinton's budgeting, taxation, declining civilain government staff levels, welfare reform, sub $300 billion defense spending, which resulted in the military readiness and capabilities that prevailed in Afghanistan and against Saddam's forces in Iraq,
along with a much closer adherence to contitutional restraints and respect for the rights of U.S. residents.....by default, and in comparison to the spending and deficits achieved by Reagan and Bush '41.....influence you into supporting democrats, instead of republicans? What prevents you from considering throwing your support for a Gore 2008 candidacy, or for the election of the democratic congressional candidate in your district, in November?

I never said I wouldn't vote for a Democrat.

Of course, I still need to be convinced to vote for ANYBODY. And please don't try now, because I plan on ignoring everything involving political races outside of Maryland until 2007 at least.

And I KNOW in that case I'm voting Ehrlich for governer and Steele for Senate.

james t kirk · 05-21-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

As for the trustworthy bit, yes, Clinton did lie under sworn testimony, but, I still feel like it was his own business and not ours, who he gets a hummer from is between him and his wife. I feel like he was honest about matters of state, unlike president bush.

Very well put.

05-13-2006, 06:29 AM	#2 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Interesting thought, but do you really think Al Gore would consider running again? Maybe after 8 years he's gotten over the loss, but he seemed pretty done with political office afterwards. Can't say I've paid much attention to what he's been doing since - and the fact that I could get away with not noticing much from him says something. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

05-13-2006, 09:50 AM	#4 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	Gore’s supper serial about man bear pig right now, he may run after he has defeated it… But seriously I’d still vote for gore, if he ran, basically I’d vote for any change in government, if I thought Nader could win, I’d vote Nader, I don’t like how this government is getting more and more draconian. As for the trustworthy bit, yes, Clinton did lie under sworn testimony, but, I still feel like it was his own business and not ours, who he gets a hummer from is between him and his wife. I feel like he was honest about matters of state, unlike president bush. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

05-13-2006, 07:20 PM	#15 (permalink)
1010011010 Psycho Location: Virginia Beach, VA	Bush hasn't lied when he has a legal liability. This makes him more honest than Clinton. Sure. In Christian Nationalist Land, perhaps. __________________ *Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions*

05-14-2006, 05:53 PM	#28 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	You could make a serious, legitimate argument that there are no good Republicans OR good Democrats, because the "good" people either get screwed by the bad ones or refuse to allow themselves to be corrupted by the process of getting and staying elected. In other words, no one we can vote for is worth voting for. I will now self-immolate in my own cynicism. Of course, if I survive, you could all write-in votes for me... __________________ "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

05-13-2006, 09:28 AM	#3 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Yeah, I don't think he wants to run again. He never really liked campaigning in the first place. I know he agreed to do some work for the upcoming election, helping out some of our candidates, but he only did that reluctantly. Also considering he ran away from Clinton in the 2000 election, I'm not sure if he can go back and start embracing him now. If you really want a candidate who'll continue the Clinton legacy and get us back to the good old days, why not Hillary? Not only is her last name Clinton, but she'll have the man himself right next to her, helping her out as "First Spouse". The slogan "Two for the price of one" would work well this time, at least unofficially. And isn't it time for a female President anyway? To be honest, she's not my first choice, but there's certainly a good argument for her.

05-13-2006, 10:20 AM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	We need a green or indi president to have any real change. We need someone outside of the influence of corporations, espically war contractors. Republicans are powerless to stop their leadership, Democrats can't muster any kind of counter attack. We need someone unexpected to enter the ring and show everyone how it's realy done. Could Gore have done that back in 2000? It's entirely possible. He is a brilliant man and forward thinking. Had 9/11 even happened while Gore was on watch (which it might not have), we would have seen a completly different response. Gore strikes me as someone who would work with as many of our allies as possible. Can you imagine if 9/11 would have brought the world together instead of splintering it apart? That'd be an interesting reality to live in. I wasn't old enough to vote in the 2000 election, but I probably woud have voted for Gore. Probably. Who is more trust worthy? Clinton lies about nailing the fat chick vs. Bush lies about secret wire tapping of Americans, he lies about reasons to go to war with another country that was not a danger to the US in any way, shape, or form, and he lies about Iran developing nuclear weapons. Jee...whos' lie(s) hurt more people? Who's lies rape our constitution? Who's lies kill innocent civilians? Who's lies are headed in the direction (if not already arrived at) a police state? I know Clinton wasn't perfect. There were some botched military operations, and some people did die, but he never led us to war. Clinton's lies were more like that of a teenager caught cheating on his girlfriend. "What? I wouldn't touch her!"

05-13-2006, 02:43 PM	#6 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	All I see from the Democrats is anti-Bush rhetoric while at the same time many of them vote right along with the Republicans in regards to the wars, draconian legislation, and outrageous spending. Gore really has nothing to offer and the complicity of the Democrats makes a 3rd party candidate my only choice for 08. What is there to gain by voting more of the same in? He's not going to reverse any of the damage done to the Constitution or the push for one branch (executive) control. The only appeal a Democrat has to me is that all these neo-cons who love Bush's agenda will suddenly wake up and question the powers Gore inherited just because they hate liberals. :sigh: the voting system is so comprimised I dunno if voting is even that significant anymore. 00 and 04 were pretty sketchy, maybe they won't even bother to hold an 08 election due to bird flu, or 'terrorists'.

05-14-2006, 03:10 AM	#16 (permalink)
scout Psycho	I believe the scariest thing about the next election is the Democrats will nominate the most liberal, let's kiss the worlds ass anti-gun, anti-anything truly American nut they can find and force me to vote a straight Republican ticket one more time. Geeez when will they learn .....

05-14-2006, 12:43 PM	#20 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Bush is and the Republicans are the worst ever so we MUST elect Democrats in order to survive. I don't buy it for one second. I refuse to vote for either of these two parties on the federal level. For one if Democrats were standing up to half of what Bush has been doing we wouldn't be in this grave situation, and secondly I don't agree with a the liberal ideology anyway. So why should I vote for them regardless of how much I disklike the vast majority of the GOP. There're are some good Democrats like you say, and good Republicans as well. Al Gore and company aren't going to restore any 'checks and balances' and they are just as corporatly controlled as the other party.

05-14-2006, 02:12 PM	#25 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The reason that no third party has a chance is because no one thinks they can win. That very catch 22 is what is damning the US, andf the rest of the world. Kerry wanted to stay in Iraq, even after finding out that there were no WMDs and no al Qaeda links ro Iraq. Why should I have to vote for him just to keep Bush out of office? If everyone in the US suddenly woke up and realized that there are notr two, buyt dozens of political parties, and voted as such, the Republican stranglehold on our country would be a memory. But it's true that talking about who to vote for now is a moot point. There is damage that has already been done. Thousands of soldiers lie dead in the wake of inhuman decisions made by selfish cowards. Millions of phone records are open and are being reviewd illegally by covert agenies who only answer to one man...and that one man only has his own interests in mind. A country burns and is torn apart, with another one in our sights. It's time to begin the impeachment of POTUS, VPOTUS, members of the House and Senate, Justice department officials, DoD agents and officials, CIA operatives and officials, NSAoperatives and officials, and a slew of others who either took an active or passive role in laying waste to the Constitution and the American trust.

05-14-2006, 02:25 PM	#27 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	The lesser of two evils is STILL evil, make a stand for what you actually believe in, rather than vote for a different form of evil. The reason third party politics aren't successful is because people are too focused on believing they can't be successful.

05-14-2006, 07:24 PM	#29 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	dj, if you have survived self-immolation, you have my vote.

05-14-2006, 08:44 PM	#31 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Whu vote Dem if the Republicans are just going to rig the election and get away with it? Voting is useless. Impeachment is the answer.

05-15-2006, 05:20 PM	#35 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	If you can return to the Republican roots of conservative fiscal policy, I'll be there, walker and all. (When I'll be 76 )