Kerry transition teams taking steps to heal america
 

This is definetley going in the right direction

I know he's a dirty word to some, but this evokes memories of the Clinton Administration. We had, most notably, William Cohen for DOD. The nation is really fractured right now. I hope Kerry does this and that the Democrats aren't so petty as to hold a grudge.

I have high hopes for some level of unity from both sides should Mr. Kerry take the helm. But, I also feel it will be an uphill battle for a couple years, as we are so badly divided right now. Still....this is a good sign.

He has tight friendships with several high ranking Republican Senators. Luger, Hagel, Chaffe, Snowe and McCain.

That will at least help.

I'm not sure what I'd classify McCain as, but probly independent, not republican. He holds the views, but isn't what I'd call a member of the party.

I hope he does just as well as Clinton did, 1994 was a wonderful year.

Honest question. Is this sarcasm, or did something "good" happen during 1994 when Clinton was in power?


Mr Mephisto

Yes and yes.

administrative reminder: sarcasm does not function well here. in fact it is frowned upon because it has a deteriorative effect on mutual respect and collegiality
...

"I hope Kerry does this and that the Democrats aren't so petty as to hold a grudge."

Yes, absolutely.
This is crucial.
We are at a near crisis in our lack of cohesiveness and unity of purpose. We must rise above mere partisanship.
Thanks for the post, Superbelt.

He's referring to the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994.
Which had everything to do with a bunch of pussy democrats who wouldn't support the president from their own party. The ensuing gridlock gave the Republicans the opportunity to argue to the american people for a more efficient legislature.

Bush tried this, the democrats stabbed him in the back every chance they got.

The questions isn't if democrats will hold a grudge, the question is will republicans.

What Democrats were installed by Bush to high ranking positions? What Democrat interests were pushed during his administration?

I am more worried about after the past two years of being locked out of virtually all decision making, the democratic caucus sees Kerry installing several republicans in high positions in his administration as an affront. I would see it more as a healing process myself.
I am not too worried that the republicans will hold a grudge. For the most part the legislature will accept a transfer of power graciously in a smooth and decisive election, which we all have to just pray for right now.

Good discussion. Makes me want to resurrect the non-partisan/bi-partisan threads I started about midway through this.

I hope this tack continues through a potentially disputed election process, on through January, and into the next Presidency.

source Rolling Stone 11 Nov 2004, issue 961

They didn't ask about Ashcroft :|

I have to agree with Kerry about his assessment of bush's team. The only one i have any respect for is colin powell and they drained all of his standing with the infamous UN presentation

No child left behind (Teddy Kennedy got to write the damn thing).
Perscription drug act (that was their agenda wasn't it?)

No Child Left Behind, but no money to go with it.

Prescription Drug Act was a total perversion of what the Democrats wanted. That's like taking your car to a detailer and saying you want fiery flames painted on the side and you get it back with pink daisies.

Conversely, Clinton was a willing and active participant in Welfare Reform and Welfare to Work. It was a real compromise bill. It wasn't exactly what anyone wanted, but at least it signified progress.
Early in Clintons second term He and the Congress compromised and reduced taxes for most americans and at the same time they cuts spending and instituted reforms that produced a balanced budget.

Can you really come up with anything that was on par with what Clinton accomplished with a Republican Legislature?

hold a grudge? against what?

I said earlier:

it is also tactical, this move on kerry's part: seeking to make explicit alliances with older-school republicans, the moderates, and by doing so perhaps to marginalize the bush crowd--which does not represent the whole of the republican party.

more power to him--i hope it works.

No. What Bush tried was to tell everyone how much of a uniter he was going to be, push his conservative agenda, and let his worshippers claim the Democrats were stubborn and backstabbers because they didn't just go along with whatever the man said.

And he was able to do this because his party controls the Senate and the House - i.e. He doesn't have to compromise on anything or offer anything, but he can still pretend to claim the high ground.

This is like the sharks asking a few barracudas to join them to unite their cause. What about the rest of us fish?

It ain't gonna happen. You think we're divided now with Bush in office? Hah! If that traitorous piece of scum gets in, expect gridlock the likes of which we've never seen before.

As the saying goes: "Payback's a bitch".

How very helpful.

Thank you for helping me understand this issue.

Mr Mephisto


PS - that also was sarcasm.

Thanks for helping us step away from ugly partisanship.

I agree that Kerry needs to include Republicans. What he really should do is get a few cabinet members who are old school Republicans - conservatives who believe in fiscal responsibility, a realist foreign policy, the transatlantic alliances, and civil liberties. This country is extremely polarized, and a Kerry administration will have to govern a country in ruin with a likely hostile Senate and House. Uniting the "old guard" of the Republicans with Democrats IS possible, especially as a reaction that both have to neocons and the Bush administration.

I do say this as a bleeding-heart liberal. Personally, if I had my way, the most conservative members of Congress would have ideologies resembling Dick Durbin's. Nonetheless, I think that as leader of this country, Kerry would do well to try and unite it, even if it means staying a little too far to the right.

Why should the Republicans do that? The Democrats have been foaming at the mouth for the past 4 years. Why shouldn't the Republicans return the favor?

That's like an armed robber getting shot by his victim, and whining "why'd he shoot me? That bastard shouldn't have had a gun!!!"

I won't get worked up until AFTER the election ;)

Bush looses then we can talk about revenge, though I doubt the Republicans will give aid and comfort to the enemy, so Iraq should at least proceed.

Why shouldn't they give aid and comfort to the enemy? If Kerry wins, that'll show that the American people SUPPORT treason....

The Republicans control the Senate and White House...why the hell do you need "revenge?" People love to talk about liberal whiners, but most of the "permanent victims" that I see here are of the conservative stripe. If it isn't the media, it's the "tin foil hat" liberals all conspiring together. Can we get a little perspective?

Because the Democrats created a huge amount of gridlock, so turnabout is indeed fair game. That's not revenge, that's using the Democrat's stategy against them, which certainly IS fair.

In another thread you argued for gridlock so please spare us the crocodile tears.

"revenge"
"bitch"
"payback"
"why should we?"
"treason"
"tin foil hat"
"liberal media" (why is that a bad thing, any more than "conservative media"?)
"gridlock"
"turnabout"



It must be great to be a "compassionate conservative". I only wish I were so perfect, so above criticism, so confident in my righteousness... I'd love to live like that.


Mr Mephisto

My position is consistent. In the other thread, I argued for gridlock. In this thread, I'm arguing for gridlock. We're talking about the republicans "playing ball" with the democrats so that the Democratic agenda gets pushed forward. I oppose that, and don't think that the Republicans should "play ball".

Please quote where I've EVER said that I was a "compassionate conservative". I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from calling me names. My wife just walked by, read what you and I wrote, and said "When have you EVER said you were compassionate about anything???" Gawd, I love my wife... :)

Nope, in this thread you are swearing "revenge" on the Democrats for their tendencies that have contributed to gridlock. Shouldn't you be congratulating them?

Please quote where I used the word "revenge". I'd appreciate it if when you quote me, you actually "quote" me, if you know what I mean, rather than put words into my mouth that I didn't say. Thanks in advance. :thumbsup:

You're right, you didn't use the word "revenge" (that was Ustwo), but you did say:
"Payback" meaning, perhaps, revenge? I believe that the intent is clear.

Kudos to your wife. It sounds like she has a sense of humour!

Now, to the point you raised.

If you look carefully at the words I quoted, you will note that they include quotations from the posts of Ustwo. Ustwo described himself as a compassionate conservative, so I used that term (in quote marks).

It was an attempt to be concilatory actually. Many of you use the term "liberal" as an insult, though I personally wear it as a badge of honour (only in the US does it seem to be a bad thing to be liberal!). Conversely, and to ensure you wouldn't be insulted, I didn't use the general term "conservative", but the nicer phrase (if you will) of "compassionate conservative".

So, the quotations above were not only from YOUR posts, but many of your fellow board members. I think we all now accept you, personally, are NOT a compassionate conservative.

:)


Mr Mephisto

Pride in a lack of compassion. :rolleyes: How anti-human of you.

Yes, but you see - that's because Liberals are bad and Conservatives are not. Ergo, Republican-induced gridlock is most excellent, and Democrat-induced gridlock is purely vile.

It's all very simple.

Nah, she just knows I'm a cold-hearted bastard. That's why she loves me.

They also use quotes from my posts.

The term "liberal" has been hijacked by the Democrats. Where it was once a good thing to be a liberal (ie a "classical Liberal"), now it denotes a fascistic authoritarian streak in an effort to encroachingly control all aspects of our lives. THAT is why the term "liberal" is scorned in the US.

As for me, I'm not sure if I'm a conservative or not. It all depends on how you define "conservative". Personally, I consider myself to be a Jeffersonian Democrat. That puts me either so far to the left or so far to the right in today's terms that I'm not exactly sure HOW I should be described. What I DO know is that while Bush pretty much sucks, Kerry will be many orders of magnitude worse.

Let me repeat what I said, this time with added emphasis.

"
If you look carefully at the words I quoted, you will note that they include quotations from the posts of Ustwo."

Are you suggesting I should only include reponses to you alone in special "stand alone" posts?

Come on. :) Don't be silly.



Mr Mephisto

If you're accusing somebody of something, damned straight. If you were NOT accusing me of being a "compassionate conservative", why did you include quotes taken from my posts?

Good grief.

Let me spell it out for you. I wasn't accusing you of anything.

The post was not directed at you personally. Please lose the delusions of grandeur. It was a synthesis of words plucked from several posts.

If you want some kind of copy-right on each word you use, go somewhere else.


Mr Mephisto

It's weird. Civilians says we are devided, but I have thorough contact with military people and they all love what the president is doing.

I support freedom, who ever brings it. If kerry can make things better, good for him, i'll support him, but Democrats have a history of taking freedom away and hiding it behind a veil of "For the people".

Yes I'm a wage earning middle american who is tired of seeing democrates propaganda to move the masses.

I finally figured out what bothered me in this thread.

Who has been causing the wounds in America?

I think it was some dude named "Chad" in Florida...

If it were only so simple.

Do you think the left would have acted any differently if Bush had a majority vote in 2000 or would they have just made up different slogans?

If it hadn't been close, I think they WOULD have behaved differently. Maybe not the far-left "MIHOP" Kool-aide-drinking crowd, but the rank and file Democrats? Sure. I think the results of 2000 pushed the Democratic party far, far to the left. And I think it's going to burn them in the future.

Eventually, somebody's gonna create the "Average American" party. It's going to be pro-choice, pro guns, mildly anti-drug (treatment, not prison) reasonably hawkish on foreign policy but not "kill'em all!!!", it'll believe that silent prayer in school is OK, "God" on money and in the pledge isn't constitutional heresy, and that the Bill of Rights actually means what it says, ALL of it.

Let me guess...it's the Democrats. Solely the Democrats. No other forces like crime or poverty or drugs or insanity or deperation or the sheer randomness of humanity had anything to do with it. No, the explanation is much clearer than that. It was the Democrats.

Sarcastic maybe, but funny. :)

Mr Mephisto

I'd accept that statement with the insertion of "It was (5% of) the Democrats."

In all honesty, "far to the left" in American politics is damn near in the center of the road. conservatives have been very successful in redefining the political vocabulary in this country, so much so that the word "liberal" has become a curse. It's always struck me as funny how often Bill Clinton was accused of being "far left." He passed NAFTA, joined the WTO and dismantled the welfare state. The US Green party exists because of the dissatisfaction of leftists with the Democratic party.

I could accept a bigger piece of the pie, although statistics like that would be impossible to prove. I don't like either major party very much. I just bristle at the thought that you can solely blame Democrats for the problems of this country. Nothing is that simple.

Personally, I blame the extremes on both sides, except myself and people like me. It's not just the Democrats, it's also the far loony right. "God wants me to be President"? Gimme a f*cking BREAK.

The far left pushes the Dems to the left, just as the far right pushes the 'pubs to the right. Unfortunately, that leaves a big gap in the middle. Well, OK, maybe that's fortunate. Shiat, I dunno, I just want this to be over, and anybody BUT Kerry to win.

So this reminds me of ARTelevision's old thread "What I shall be doing after the election".

What will you be doing? I'm not trying to be provocative; I'm just curious.

Will you support Kerry if he wins? He will be your President and Commander in Chief after all.


Mr Mephisto

Off topic, but I have to admit I thought of Kaswig when I saw this pic..

heheh

http://www.orsm.net/shite2/rs0004.jpg


Mr Mephisto

Not much will change for the first year or so if Kerry is president. It's that way with all administrations. Overall I don't think I will change much, nor my life will change dramatically.

Really I just don't want Kerry to win because I love our military, I have a military family, and Kerry's attitude is that the war is a mistake. I'm not saying he thinks our military is a mistake, but the general feel that he gives to my military friends is that they are worthless. That's why my friends love GW, because Bush makes them feel a sense of pride.

If Kerry has and idea to win the war, good for him, but all I know it's players for a team game when it comes to war. The quarterback may have a play, but it's not going to work if the other players don't like him.

You might wanna look for potholes.

The far left may be center of the road to you, but its not center of the road in this country. If it was, you wouldn't see a split like this.

Chop wood, pour water.

You missed my point entirely. I'm not talking about popularity but the relative political climate. Hell, most of the right is pretty centrist in this country. The political spectrum in America is very narrow.

By your logic, the "far left" encompasses 50% of this country. I don't think that most Democrats fit that descritption, just as most Republicans aren't really "far-right."

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding me and that picture. :|

OK, I do know what you're talking about, I'm just pulling your leg. It's a funny picture, and I laughed when I saw it.

BTW, I consider myself to be something of a pacifist. Not the "do anything you like and I will not resist" kind of pacifist, but the generally "live and let live" kind of pacifist who ensures that nobody bothers me by making sure that not only do I outgun the neighbors, but I also outgun the local National Guard armored unit. I'm NOT the person you want to commit an armed robbery in front of. ;)

Nope. I'll not support Kerry. But at the same time, I'm not gonna go to Europe and hold talks with Al Queda, and then come home and start a PR blitz to try and get the US to appease Al Queda. That's HIS job.

Damn, I lost the office pool....

Perhaps I missed your point because of this line

Your point is very vaguely stated. When I think far left, I think far left, I think Greens aka Communist, I think groups like Answer, and I think of dirty hippies looting stores while pretending to protest the WTO.

The problem for the Democrats is that its not that they are all far left, but that the far left has to big a voice in it.

What do the things that you've cited have to do with the Democratic party? And what do they have to do with the american left? It's obvious that you are unwilling to engage in any sort of balanced discussion.

Edit: really, you've said nothing that disproves my ideas. The accepted spectrum of political discourse in this country is painfully narrow.

I dunno...when you've got the left rallying to International ANSWER and carrying signs like the "We support our troops when they shoot their officers" thing, it's going to be a hard sell that the left isn't too broad...

What? All 50 odd million of them?

Or just a couple of assholes who carried a sign?

By that same standard, the American right and therefore (by the same implication you use) the Republican party is made up of gay-bashing, negro-kllling, KKK, Nazi supporting, AIDS funeral picketing assholes.

Wow... I didn't know all you guys were so bad. How do you sleep at night?


Mr Mephisto