I'm not sure if he's credible to either side, but John Dean weighs in with a similar opinion.

It's true that political polarization seems to be at an all-time high. An interesting study is to look at the Gini index (a measure of economic disparity) with respect to insurrections, and our current position on this scale. Revolutions and insurrections generally come cloaked in cultural resentment and grievances, but are almost always underscored by economic inequality.

Regardless, I hope hope hope it doesn't come to this. Whoever wins the presidency urgently needs to soothe the waters in America. Things are bad in this regard and they're getting worse.

This is to say: if Mr. Kerry wins the presidency, I (and I hope other libs) will pressure him to make political concessions to conservatives - or nation is in dire shape. I hope beyond hope that, if Mr. Bush wins reelection, he'll cease with his high-handed disregard for the opposition party and its constituant electorate.

-Fe Wm.

They were worried about a civil war after 2000 as well. Odd how much of the world reviles the US for its strength and leadership, but the prospect of a void just scares the bejebus out of them.

hope beyond hope that, if Mr. Bush wins reelection, he'll cease with his high-handed disregard for the opposition party and its constituant electorate.

Well, it sure would help if the "opposition party and its constituant electorate." were to accept the legitimacy of the election this time!

I think they're projecting - they think our country is a reflection of theirs.

Well, it sure would help if the "opposition party and its constituant electorate." were to accept the legitimacy of the election this time!

Both sides are poisoning the well of legitimacy as we speak, and I strongly predicting that, no matter who wins, the opposition is going to have strong doubts about the legitimacy of the victor.

Look - I promise to work on my people if Bush wins. We can't afford for our democracy to be viewed illegitimate. Please tell me you'll try to do the same if Kerry wins.

-Fe Wm.

The upshot is, a shooting Civil War would be short. The blue staters willing disarmed themselves long ago. As entertaining as seeing a ragged army of lefties trying to decide how to arrange an egalitarian chain of command would be, i hope it doesnt happen. Still, I think the loonier portions of the left have a dangerous misapprehension (dangerous for them). They have pushed their protest methods so far, I dont think they realize how close they are to pushing to heretofore peaceful middle America into some old fashioned Daley style hippy womping. Red America is actually very tolerant of political dissent (try carrying an American flag through a ANSWER protest in contrast), but absolutely not tolerant of law breaking and violence.

They are right to be worried. Americans should be more focused upon the resurgence of the post-Soviet International Left and it's infiltration of the Democratic Party, American Unions, Universities and the American political process. We are entering a neo-Stalinist era in American politics. The parasitic mentality and temperament that hijacked the Soviet state, murdered Trotsky and killed Marxism is on the hunt. Neo-Stalinism is here and on the march. We need to start calling it what it is.

I don't see a shooting civil war as being likely at all.

I do think we are in the proccess of an ideological civil war, but I think this war will still mostly be fought through obstructionism, and the political gotcha game.

There are too many apathetic people out there to take up arms, because the guy they like didn't win the election.

How many brownshirt agitators do you think it will take? As history has shown, it does not take very many. The shirts don't need to be brown either. If the plan is good and the participants are devoted, blue shirts will work just fine.

Please tell me you'll try to do the same if Kerry wins.

I certainly will. You need have no doubt. Back when Gore lost I was a Democrat and was pretty bitter about his loss. But I did then and will again (from the other side of the fence) accept the winner of the election, or electoral college, or supreme court decision. Because not to leads to chaos.

A 'shooting civil war' ? oh please.

American's NIMBY inclinations will prevent that.

The parasitic mentality and temperament that hijacked the Soviet state, murdered Trotsky and killed Marxism is on the hunt. Neo-Stalinism is here and on the march.

First off, I'm skeptical of what you posted, and what I'm about to post, just by dint of them both being hyperbolic. But if you want to find parallels to the Soviet Union, I think you have it a bit backwards.

The Soviet state (and Trotsky) was killed by authoritarianism, lack of accountability, and the cult of personality. In essence, it was the confluence of economic, military and political power in too few hands with no real checks.

Sound familiar? Stalin gained power by demonizing the intelligentsia, controlling the media and consolodating military and economic power. He also dispersed opposition groups and elevated scam-artist scientists like Lysenko to parrot what he wanted.

Trotsky played his own role in the formation of this, and only called for the relatively moonbat Fifth International once he was on the outs.

-Fe Wm.

Thank goodness for a free press and elected representatives, negative campaigning, 527's, moonbats, wingnuts and all the other detritis of Democracy!

"Sound Familiar" ugh......Well, a bit, Lincoln.

be careful -Fe wm. The 'They are Commies and/or Nazis routine is one of the early signs of moonbat/wingnut - itis.

Yeah - it's all a bit obtuse, the parallels are murky, and, like I said, the whole comparison to Soviet Internationalism is absolutely hyperbolic. I'm just sick of the American Left continually being pegged with "Stalinist" references when Stalin was just a brutal nationalist authoritarian with communist trim.

Now - if someone wants to make "Leninist" analogies to the American Left, I'll still disagree (and call the references hyperbolic), but at least think that the analogy is in the correct direction.

-Fe Wm.

One other thing:

With all the hand-wringing about the "example" we set for young democracies, I think the most likely outcome will set the best example of all.

With this bitterly faught election, with all the voting irregularities less than competant state beauracrats can dream up, with whatever court challenges lay ahead, with all the screaming and acrimony -- the fact that on Jan 21 *someone* will be sworn in and there *won't* be a civil war is the most powerful pro-democracy lesson there is.

They are Commies and/or Nazis routine is one of the early signs of moonbat/wingnut - itis

I absolutely agree, and can't stand these constant references. The "brownshirt" stuff seems to be pop up far too often. I was just trying to rebut the "Stalinist" charge, given that it was not only hyperbolic, but actually in the wrong direction.

-Fe WM.

Oh I see.

Sorry. Did not read the post you were responding to. I have certain "stop" words that trigger my eyes to move on to another post. Communst, Nazi, Hitler, End of Democracy.... so I hit one of those words.

They are right to be worried. Americans should be more focused upon the resurgence of the post-Soviet International Left ...

STOP - Next

Postmodernism has eroded the common ground needed for reason and rational discussion. Memogate revealed the other side has abandoned any sense of decency or fair play.

They believe the right is even worse.

As recently as Clinton’s terms politics stopped at the border. No longer, any glitch in the war is fodder for denunciations and portrayal of the amazingly successful effort as an unmitigated disaster. An economy struggling toward prosperity is portrayed as negative and unfair risking recovery for political advantage.

Trash the war, trash the economy to win the election. When both sides start to play that game, we are in the next civil war long before the shooting starts.

That’s the danger of electing Kerry. The Dems are already playing that game so a Bush win brings us no closer. When the Repubs start, and we will, the slide down the slippery slope begins.

The most precious thing we have in our country is the social capital built up over our 2 plus centuries of working at it.

However, the Dem playbook this year seems to want to disregard the rule of law, which is the most dangerous precedent in the world.

That being said, I don't think there will be this great "civil war" or such. We have had a lot worse in our history in terms of political mudslinging and survived just fine. Most people just don't have a sense of history.

However, I do think this: if Kerry were to win, he would be utterly detested by the Bush half of the country, and for good reason. There is no way he could win their trust. There is also no way Kerry could win the trust of the military or the veterans. Kerry's whole candidacy is conditioned on the reflexive anti-Bush sentiment among his supporters; if Bush is gone, they have no more reason to rally behind him. So if Kerry wins, expect a very energized opposition and a very weak presidency.

Another side effect of a Kerry victory would be the vindication of his scorched earth politics of destruction; expect to see the opposition spend the next 4 years tearing Kerry down, literally blaming him for every thing that goes wrong in the world during his term, just like they have done with Bush.

Boris,

Lets hope not. I don't think so. I think we are in a period of sharp differences. Which is AS it should be! If we were conducting a pre-emptive war (which I think is most necessary and laudable) and there *weren't* acrimony - THEN I would be afraid.

I don't think RatherGate represent's THEM. I think it represents CBS's and Rather's bad judgement brought on by CBS's Rather's and really most of all Mapes' bias.

But they were CAUGHT! Huzzah! The truth triumphs again!

Kind of off topic and a purely anecdotal story, but I do know of one Democrat who will vote for Bush to clear the way for Hillary in 08.

Their reasoning is this: Kerry, if elected would be an utter failure and not really be a hero to anyone in his party, like Bill Clinton was. Clinton is loved in the Democratic party, while Kerry is tolerated as the current standard bearer. They would rather wait to make history in 08 with Hillary....it's just too tempting for them not to go for it.

I wonder how many other closet Hillary 08 voters are out there?

expect to see the opposition spend the next 4 years tearing Kerry down, literally blaming him for every thing that goes wrong in the world during his term, just like they have done with Bush.

And? Why not? Let the people separate a smear from the truth or propaganda from 'consciousness raising' .

All this whining about the lack of civility in American Politics. Burr SHOT Hamilton from cripes sakes!

uh...FOR cripes sake. (for cripes sake)

Right of Center: I agree with you: I see nothing wrong if the opposition tears into Kerry, if Kerry wins.

A Kerry presidency would be a nightmare for this country in many ways; the more he would be crippled politically the less harm he could do.

"Their reasoning is this: Kerry, if elected would be an utter failure and not really be a hero to anyone in his party, like Bill Clinton was. Clinton is loved in the Democratic party, ..."

He wasn't loved by party faithful when he was in office, any more than the Dems loved Carter when HE was in office. I recall a lot of ambivalence and embarrassment. Remember, it was Carter who brought back the much despised G-D to politics.

All these guys are despised in their own time, and then revered LATER. Only when the Lewinksky thing dragged on did Clinton's own start sticking up for him. Now they're elevating him to sainthood. The whole process makes me puke.

I dont think Kerry _cant_ win over Republicans to at least respect him. Im very confident he _wont_, just judging by his track record. If Kerry wins, i, for one, will support him as CIC. It will be turn about time, and we owe our country loyalty and support to the CIC even if he and his party showed precious little. If (when) Kerry starts making bad decisions, that will be the time for argument, but not dissent.

Boris,

As recently as Clinton’s terms politics stopped at the border. No longer, any glitch in the war is fodder for denunciations and portrayal of the amazingly successful effort as an unmitigated disaster.

Gimme a break! I couldn't sleep during the nineties for all the yowls of "what will the world think of our President being serviced by an intern," and was roundly treated to a hundred-thousand charges of "wag the dog" when Clinton bombed Al Quieda or invaded Eastern Europe. The internet was alive with gleeful missives about how Marines were refusing to salute Clinton in exactly the proper fashion. And no irrgularity was small enough for the very vocal right to start throwing "-gate" after it.

You think the Left has been petulant under Bush? Stop and think about Clinton's eight years. Now there was some real venom.

It also galls me that the right the party of self-described "personal responsibility" absolutely refuses to take responsibility for anything bad that's happened the past four years. No WMDs? It must be the liberal media's fault for overhyping the case. Big deficits? Tax cuts must not have been big enough and it must have been Clinton's fault. Huge opposition to our "nation building" in Iraq? Liberal media, again, isn't reporting all the people who haven't been killed by a roadside bomb. Abu Gharib? Darn enlisted peons defying orders - court martial a staff sergeant. Osama Bin Laden? Uncatchable. Europe hates us? We hate them too.

Man up and take responsibility, my Right Wing friends. I'm sick of so many "rugged individualists" offering litanies of excuses and denials for whatever's gone wrong.

-Fe Wm.

"if Kerry were to win, he would be utterly detested by the Bush half of the country, and for good reason. There is no way he could win their trust."

After all of the ranting about "Bush lied" and how he's a "simpering chimp" and a hundred other things, yeah there'll be a sizable percentage of the population that will not trust him at all (particularly when there is plenty of evidence that he has lied, the recent UN Security council thing for example). As has already been noted, the Democrats will celebrate for a couple of months, and then bicker among themselves about what should be done with the country.

Democrats are voting for Kerry for largely one reason: He's not Bush. Based on this, I don't believe Kerry has a shot at all. That kind of thinking rallies the base, but not the swing voters. Republicans made a similar mistake in '96 with Dole and had their ass handed to them (almost a complete reversal of the Republican revolution of '94). Democrats are doing the same thing now, only they're a hell of a lot louder.

If lightening strikes my crotch twice on a blue moon and Kerry actually does win, it'll be interesting to see the Democrats bicker back and forth with Kerry in the middle. It'd be hilarious to watch if it weren't for the reality of the war on terror.

Mr. Buehner,

You're in the military?

-Fe Wm.

Slightly OT: In Gulf I, Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress authorized the use of force but didn't formally declare war. If Kerry is elected, might Congress have to take a more active position? How might the Repiblicans act if Kerry does, in fact, treat the WOT as a law enforcement problem instead of a military one?

Mr. Buhener has it right I think.

About the "wag the dog thing" -Fe Wm, Do you think Clinton's ablity to react more forcefully to Al Queda was reduced because of Lewinsky?

Is Partisan carping and scandal mongering more or less responsible depending on the seriousness of our situation?

I think Kerry will have a hard time winning some of those who are voting for him over.

Kerry has a lot of ABB votes, and many of those can't stand Kerry, they just hate Bush more.

Also, unlike Clinton, I don't think the media will be as kind to Kerry-I think the media wants to see Bush defeated, but that doesn't mean they won't play the "gotcha" game with Kerry, especially since Kerry has about as much personality and charisma as a poptart.

Kerry is also going to still be torn between his two bases-the anti war ones, will be crying for the troops to come home, whether the job is done or not, and the others will be calling to see it through, Kerry can't make either of these two groups happy.

How might the Repiblicans act if Kerry does, in fact, treat the WOT as a law enforcement problem instead of a military one?

What does it matter. There is only one CIC. The more important question is regarding Kerry as CIC. Half of his supporters are 100% dead set against the war in Iraq and want the troops home - now!

Assuming he will want a second term, what is the likelyhood he will win the peace in Iraq? That is to say, what is the likelyhood he will piss-off half of his base with a Guiliani or a McCain biding their time?

Also, unlike Clinton, I don't think the media will be as kind to Kerry-I think the media wants to see Bush defeated, but that doesn't mean they won't play the "gotcha" game with Kerry, especially since Kerry has about as much personality and charisma as a poptart.

We said the same thing about the media and Bubba in '92. It doesn't matter WHAT he is, it's what the media wants a Great White Hope to look like that counts.

It's not about the man with them, it's all about the barking moonbats he brings with him. An LA times staff writer said, some years back, after the '92 election everyone in the press room was sending in resumes' and daydreaming about their "perfect" job in the Clinton Administration. Didn't matter to them who he was except that with a Democrat in charge they had a chance. With a Republican they were pretty sure their applications wouldn't even be read.

Right of Center makes a good point. When I watched the footage from the Democratic convention, it occurred to me that Kerry is riding a tiger. Kerry himself is trying to plot a moderate course that will appeal to enough moderate Republicans that he can win the election (the "I would have invaded Iraq differentrly" rhetoric, for example), but his base -- the group that propelled him into the nomination -- is largely composed of virulently anti-Bush partisans.

I would not be surprised if Kerry in '08 resembles Bush I in 1992, having to stave off an attack from his flank while he looks forward to the general election.

--|PW|--

This is an area where it ought to be possible for both sides to come together to ensure the elections are above reproach. Some sort of bipartison committee given a year or two to work out a fair and uniform system for registering voters and counting votes, and a willingness to spend some money to put it in place. Obviously there's not enough time before the next election, But it should be possible before the next.

Honestly, I don't here either side talking about this much. There's plenty of rancor and accusations of the other side stealing the elections, but little discussion how to address the issue. Other western countries don't seem to have this amount of trouble, do they?

--Rick Taylor

Pennywit,

Lets hope it never gets that far. 08 is something to worry about, but an Iraq turned into a Taliban era "Afghanistan" after a President Kerry's self-fulfilling vietnam Quagmire prophecy comes true in 06 is much more worrisome.

The *surest* way to make Iraq into a Vietnam (along with it's concomitant defeat) is to elect the guy who already *sees* it that way!

Rick,

Elections, procedures, laws and funds are up to the states not the feds.

It should remain that way.

Retread:

The Constitution calls for the congress of the US to declare war, but gives no guidance as to the wording of such a document. As long as the legislation authorizing force in fact authorizes the President to use force, it matters not that the word "war" appears in the legislation.

In simple terms, we did declare war against Iraq.

This election has shown that the Left will say or do anything to regain power for all of their pet domestic causes.

About the "wag the dog thing" -Fe Wm, Do you think Clinton's ablity to react more forcefully to Al Queda was reduced because of Lewinsky?

Absolutely it did. Now - I'm casting the principal blame for this squarely at Mr. Clinton's feet - he did great harm to the Democratic party through his psychological problems. It's hard to understand how a man who was hounded relentlessly by the Right Wing from day 1 of his term thought it would be an OK idea to take a hummer on the sly. This wasn't the only way that Clinton sold out the Dems either.

This being said, I don't see how the claims of "partisan rancor" being applied to today's left can ignore the viciousness coming from the right during the Clinton era.

Is Partisan carping and scandal mongering more or less responsible depending on the seriousness of our situation?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Personally, I think that a lot of the Clinton "scandals" were largely immaterial, and I think that the Right spent a great deal of their credibility by hyping nonstarters like "nannygate" and "filegate" or "travelgate," or through black helicopter stuff like the Vince Foster suicide (or the accompanying "Ron Brown" stuff - sheesh!).

Remember the "Angry White Man" vote of 1994, or the "Republican Revolution"? Historians are going to look back at that period and roll their eyes.

But - to give them their due - it's the role of a citizenry to hold a presidents' feet to the fire. They just could have chosen their battles a bit better, and contained their "outrage" to actual outrages.

-Fe Wm.

Remember the "Angry White Man" vote of 1994, or the "Republican Revolution"? Historians are going to look back at that period and roll their eyes.

Maybe.

But to my eyes all that rancor pales in comparrision with the lunacy of the left today. I'll grant you the wingnuts of Clinton Era "they killed Vince Foster" fame were wacky and damaging, but how many were infected with it? 5%? Probably an over estimation. And what was at risk? The politics of "personal destruction" as Clinton liked to say were exactly that - personal destruction.

What do we face now? The Leftie moonbat infection rate must be 25% 40%? And what is at stake?

And (as you say) like a good American I lay some of this at the Presiden't feet - Bush. In my opinion he sold the war in the wrong way.

It wasn't that we went to war because we knew there were WMD's. It was precisely because we didn't know.

You don't get a second chance with a nuke (or a kilo of Anthrax, FWIW) at the corner of 52nd and 7th.

So if we measure the danger of partisan moonbattery or wingnutship by their prevalence and capacity to inflict REAL damage - I think we are in considerably more dangerous waters now!

It is why I am now a Republican. "I did not leave the Democrats - They became moonbats!"

I'm not sure about your 5%. If I remember correctly, a Time Magazine poll during Clinton's term (prior to Lewinsky) estimated around 30% of America as what they termed "Clinton Haters". I have no idea why they didn't show up to vote in 1996.

My personal perspective is no doubt skewed, since I lived in West Texas at the time. I was plenty critical of Mr. Clinton, and didn't know anyone who liked him more than me.

As far as what's at stake - one could make the argument that only if considerable pressure is put on Mr. Bush will he reform his ways. He seems to have the sense that he answers to no one.

There's far too little honest information coming from the Executive branch regarding Iraq. The emerging Guantanamo and Abu Gharib stuff is disgraceful. While I freely admit that there's too many moneyed interests in the (D) side of the aisle as well, the extent of the Bush Administration's corporate cronyism is dizzying.

Mr Kerry will not adandon Iraq, nor, do I believe, will he prematurely declare "mission accomplished" and recall troops. I do wonder, though, if Mr. Bush will. I can envision a scenario where the Iraqi elections take place, and the US military is recalled shortly after ("our work here is done").

I guess what I'm saying is that Mr. Bush seems absolutely indifferent to the voice from the left (or the center). How have we affected him at all? And what would be the cost of affecting him?

Yes - there are some on the left (and on the right, I should remind you) demanding a retreat from Iraq. I stand against these voices, as does Mr. Kerry. Whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, we're there now, and I think there's a general agreement on all sides that we have to cowboy up and take responsibility for what we've wrought.

But making Mr. Bush take responsibility for his policies? Asking him to be honest with us? Everyone should be in agreement there.

-Fe Wm.

Two things -

1. At this point, I pine for a Dem like Clinton. (compared to the current crop)

2. Good discussion.

Fe Wm,

Quick thing, 'cause I gotta PU the kids from daycare toute suite.

But there is a difference between a Bush Hater and a Moonbat. Or Clinton Hater vice versa Wingnut as I see it.

We can quibble about Abu Ghrab or Mei Lai or the Bombing of Dresden and Nagasaki if you like.

It is BIG picture that I am concerned with. Even if Kerry fixes all the little things and makes everyone more 'happy'. In my view he lacks the BIG picture.

I *might* even consider voting for him if he out-hawked Bush. (...might)

But he puts the emphasis on happy-land things like "bringing the allies to our side". This is a rose-colored-glasses-fiction. Germany, Russia and France show NO inclination in wanting to get involved. Why would they? In the case of Germany and France it is now the 3rd-rail of their national politics. Will this change with a Kerry CIC? nope. So, what is a knowing fiction aforethought? A lie? Does it matter?

This is *our* war for *our* security. I'll take the guy who gets that in the biggest way possible. And I am prepared to cut considerable slack in the civil rights of the prisoners at Abu Ghrab. Let's treat 'em better and all that, but lets not lose the BIG picture.

When Kerry says "Nusiance" I get the context, I know what he was really saying. But (isn't their always a but) if your GOAL is to accept a certain amount of terrorism at any level - you don't get my vote. I'll go for the eradication guy every time. We may have to settle for "Nuisance" but I won't pick the guy who aims for that.

"There's far too little honest information coming from the Executive branch regarding Iraq."

I want bi-monthly reports about Iraq directly from the CIC.

"He seems to have the sense that he answers to no one."

You mean he won't take advice from people like Dashle and Gephardt.

"Mr Kerry will not adandon Iraq"

I agree.

" Mr. Bush will.... I can envision a scenario where ... the US military is recalled shortly after."

Not true, US military will be in Iraq for years.

"I guess what I'm saying is that Mr. Bush seems absolutely indifferent to the voice from the left."

Why would Bush adopt leftist ideology?.

if your GOAL is to accept a certain amount of terrorism at any level - you don't get my vote. I'll go for the eradication guy every time.

GWB yesterday:

"Whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up -- you know, is up in the air. I would hope we could make it a lot more safe by staying on the offensive," he said."

Just wondering, who is this "eradication guy?"

RoC,

First off - again - thanks for the discussion. I've been enjoying the rightie views here - at the least, I'm coming to understand your positions.

I'm not so sure that I completely agree that a non-absolutist - i.e., someone who settles short of "eradication" of "terrorism" - is necesarily a bad thing. I mean - pretty much everyone agrees that it's going to be impossible to absolutely and literally eliminate terrorism. Both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush trying to "out-tough" each other with canards like "We Will Win" is just foolishness. We won't - we can't "Win" if our definition of victory is the absolute eradication of terrorism.

Now - I'm not talking about pacifism, either. As many problems as I have with Mr. Bush, I would vote for him if I thought Mr. Kerry was going to drop the ball on terrorism.

But, honestly, taking a long, hard look at terrorism, is Mr. Bush really taking effective steps in combating it? He's absolutely rolling over on Putin ("Vladimir" - they're on a first name basis) and Musharraf, and has talked tough but done nothing on Iran and North Korea.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and a skunk. He was a bad man. But has removing him made us safer from militant Islamicists? I mean - if the modernization of Iraq actually works and spreads throughout the region, it might pay dividends in twenty years. But, as of now, it doesn't seem to be working - if anything, the region is even more anti-modernist and anti-American at the moment. Regardless, in the meantime, we just seem less safe.

Do you think that Mr. Bush's "Patriot Act" is making us more safe? I'm not so sure. As of right now, it reads like a laundry list of repealing privacy protections that the Right has despised since their inception. It's hard to imagine that library lists are any use in helping to capture international terrorists, and the government's detention of foreign nationals (and citizens) without supervision or accountability appears to have realized all of the warnings from the left.

I don't think that Mr. Bush is intending to make us less safe. I just think that his "gut" has misled him on much of this.

-Fe Wm.

If someone hiking in the woods unknowingly gets between a mother bear and her cub, the mother will attack believing the intruder is a danger to the cub. In this hypothetical that belief is incorrect, but the incorrect belief is a very real danger. If I am in that situation I have to shoot the mother bear and weep later.

The left believes Clinton’s problems were the result of right wing conspiracies.

They believe Bush stole the 2000 election.

They really believe Republicans and Christians are outright or borderline fascists.

All are incorrect, yet they place US democracy in real danger because of the tactics they justify. We may have no choice but to shoot the bear.

If there were still common ground such beliefs could be addressed rationally, but there isn’t. I despised Clinton but had 911 happened early in his 2nd term I believe he would have invaded Afghanistan and eventually Iraq with far less deference to the UN than Bush demonstrated. Had things gone about the same for him, his praises from the left would be sung to the heavens and his support from the right would have been solid, if reluctant. That’s what’s so different about the parties. It’s as if only Democrats can engage the military without ripping the country apart and that’s not good.

Het 13times,

I want bi-monthly reports about Iraq directly from the CIC.

First off, I'm freaking sick of civilians referring to the CIVILIAN PRESIDENT by a military monicker. He's a civilian. There's a reason that, unlike Musharraf or Castro, he doesn't wear a freaking uniform.

But - yes - I think that the American people are entitled to honesty and frequent reports of our status in a foreign adventure. Don't you? Won't you be angry if Kerry wins the election and just refuses to report honestly on the status in Iraq?

Classification standards exist to protect valuable and sensitive plans, not to snow-job the American people into supporting a war

"He seems to have the sense that he answers to no one."

You mean he won't take advice from people like Dashle and Gephardt...

Why would Bush adopt leftist ideology?

Mr. Bush won the electoral college under questionable circumstances and lost the popular vote. Half the country is viscerally ideologically opposed to the track he's taken, and Mr. Bush refuses to even listen to criticism or respond to questions. Don't you see something wrong with this? Won't you be angry if Mr. Kerry narrowly wins election and governs like an Emperor?

If your philosophy of governance really is the way you describe, you'd better hope to God that Mr. Kerry doesn't share your view.

-Fe Wm.

I am glad you have all this confidence in Kerry, but I think his dovish ways of the 70's, 80's and 90's are the real Kerry, and his Hawkish ways are there just to get votes, because he can't win the election, if he is a dove.

I don't trust him. Give me Clinton any day over this guy, and I think Clinton's foreign policy sucked, but Clinton never came across to me as a dove, and I don't think Clinton was ever beholden to the doves in his party base, and that is something Kerry is going to have to answer to, he has got to pacify his doves, or he is toast, and I don't think he can do that.

Hey Boris,

they [The American Left] place US democracy in real danger because of the tactics they justify. We may have no choice but to shoot the bear.

First off, what tactics do we justify that places the US Democracy is such danger?

Second, what do you mean about "shoot the bear"? What are you advocating?

Finally, you seem pretty pained that the legitimacy of Mr. Bush's election is questioned. Does this mean that if Mr. Kerry pulls out a squeaker in eight days, you'll not question the legitimacy of his election?

-Fe Wm.

The left believes Clinton’s problems were the result of right wing conspiracies.

They believe Bush stole the 2000 election.

They really believe Republicans and Christians are outright or borderline fascists.

Well, it's clear you know very little about the left in that you can a)refer to a thing as "the left" and b)ascribe a list of beliefs to all the people who supposedly comprise this "left". This kind of thinking reveals rightist battiness much more than from the other side. It is a result of your own selective reality that you think these things. I'm in the left of the polical spectrum and don't believe Clinton's problems were a result of right-wing conspiracies; he had a lot of problems he made himself, and some were media sensationalism and Ken Lay's fetishes. I do not believe Bush "stole" the election in 2000, I think the Supreme Court stopped the recounts and therefore gave Bush the presidency. And anyway, who cares, once he was sworn in he became president and that is that. Republicans and Christians are fascists? Christians? Do you even know the makeup of the Democratic Party? Do you think they're all wiccans and devil-worshippers? Do you think?

I am glad you have all this confidence in Kerry, but I think his dovish ways of the 70's, 80's and 90's are the real Kerry, and his Hawkish ways are there just to get votes, because he can't win the election, if he is a dove.

Clinton, IMO, is much more of a dove (and an opportunist) than Kerry ever was. Kerry's career track went through being a public prosecutor, as well as being on the Senate Intelligence Commitee.

As for his floppy-haired hippie phase?

Let's face it - Vietnam was a huge mess. Having been there, having witnessed it first-hand, kind of gives him the right to criticize its prosecution.

I get the feeling that the lesson learned by the Right from Vietnam was "don't allow popular criticism of a military action." I would have set "don't let political considerations influence the conduct of a war" as well, but it appears that lesson was not well-learned.

I think the lessons of Vietnam as learned by Mr. Kerry are much different. Yes - part of it is probably to only initiate war as a last resort, but part of it is also to make sure that the war is prosecuted as cleanly and honestly and honorably as is possible. A part of it is to make sure that America is clearly and definitively in the right when we go to war.

I don't think that Mr. Kerry is the closet love-beaded moonbat that he's made out to be.

-Fe Wm.

Kerry is worse than what he is made out to be.

Kerry did not just offer criticism of the prosecution of the Vietnam War, he accused the entire US military of systemic war crimes, an accusation proven to be false. Kerry popularized the image of the Vietnam vet as "baby killer" and also advocated a policy of appeasing North Vietnam.

Kerry in fact told us that we couldn't defeat Communism and shouldn't even try. Good thing Ronald Reagan didn't listen to him.

Kerry's entire history is one of weakness on national security. During the 80's he wanted to cancel every modern weapons system we use today.

Kerry was even against the first Gulf War...if Kerry had had his way, Saddam would still be ruling Kuwait and who knows what else?

Kerry has admitted that he is the only person on the planet who wasn't changed by 9-11. His policies prove that, seeking to return to the failed policies of the 1990s which allowed the terrorist problem to grow and metastasize.

Kerry sees everything through the prism of Vietnam, which for him means that the US is the cause of all problems, that the US should never use military power, and that we should appease all enemies.

Yes, Kerry is really that bad.

"If your philosophy of governance really is the way you describe, you'd better hope to God that Mr. Kerry doesn't share your view."

ROFL thats a real gem.

Clinton not only ignored the right, he beat us silly with his diversity stick.

Kerry sees everything through the prism of Vietnam, which for him means that the US is the cause of all problems, that the US should never use military power, and that we should appease all enemies.

Let's talk about this "U.S. is the source of all problems" bit, since it's come up quite a bit lately, and a lot of people have been making a lot of money by rallying against what they term the "blame America firsters" or "America haters".

I'm a Democrat. In fact, I'm a liberal Democrat. I love my country. I want my country to be the very best it can be. I want my country to champion good ideals. When my country goes to war, I want it to have done so because no other course was reasonably available.

My country, America, does not torture people. My country's government is honest with its people. My country takes the civil rights of its people very seriously. My country believes in openness for government and its accountability to the people.

When my country fails at these things, or where my country's intervention abroad causes tragedy, my country takes responsibility and makes it right as best as is possible.

My country, the United States of America, is a great country because it is a good country.

-Fe Wm.

Clinton not only ignored the right, he beat us silly with his diversity stick.

Clinton fell over himself trying to suck up to the religious right. One of my chief criticisms of the guy is that he just couldn't take it that members of the religious right just weren't going to like him. His biggest flaws in office occured because he just had to be loved by everyone.

But "diversity stick"? Is this a reference to the fact that he wasn't cruel to gays? I'm sure he wanted them to love him also.

In 20 years, picking on gays will be as unfashionable as picking on blacks is today. Prepare!

-Fe Wm.

"That’s the danger of electing Kerry. The Dems are already playing that game so a Bush win brings us no closer. When the Repubs start, and we will, the slide down the slippery slope begins."

Quite frankly, this started with Newt Gingrich in 1994, though it had been going on since 1993. Bill Clinton was absolutely pilloried his entire time in office ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell," "Hillarycare," "Monicagate" and so forth). For all of their dislike of Reagan and Bush, there didn't seem to be the same open vitoral.

The way I see it, the last four years have been the Left stepping up and playing the Right's game (just not as well). Bush didn't help his case by pissing away all the goodwill 9/11 gave him.

"This election has shown that the Left will say or do anything to regain power for all of their pet domestic causes."

Ugghhh....those pesky "domestic causes": health care, education, Social Security, the economy. Can't think of a bigger waste of time than domestic politics...

"In my opinion he sold the war in the wrong way."

"Clinton not only ignored the right, he beat us silly with his diversity stick."

Welfare reform? Remember balancing the budget? Clinton was a FAR better Republican than Bush has been a Democrat...except for Bush's "Taxcut and Spend" fiscal irresponsibility.

But "diversity stick"? Is this a reference to the fact that he wasn't cruel to gays?

Diversity is a tool used by leftists to stifle free speech. Your attempt to label me as a homophobe via gay baiting is a fine example of "diversity stick" behavior. courage!

Diversity is a tool used by leftists to stifle free speech.

Diversity is actually a tool used to provide all groups will equal rights in education, employment, and any other area where they are discriminated against. But you go ahead and believe it's a creation of the left to keep you from speaking your mind (obviously not working).

I didn't see you labelled as a homophobe? What are you talking about?

"For all of their dislike of Reagan and Bush, there didn't seem to be the same open vitoral"

You are kidding aren't you? I don't remember anyone in the mainstream (or non mainstream for that matter) comparing Clinton to Hitler or calling him a facist. I won't deny that there are Clinton haters out there, but I don't think he was treated with near the vitriole or hatred that Bush is.

Also, I stand by my observation that Kerry is nothing more than a Dove pretending to be a Hawk to get votes, and his dovish ways are going to have to win out some to appease the doves that elected him.

Also, let's consider a huge supporting point for Kerry's dovishness-1990, Iraq invades Kuwait-Bush Sr. goes to the UN, builds a coalition, gets UN approval for military action, then goes to congress, and Kerry votes "no."

Kerry doesn't have convictions, he just wants to get elected.

With his rhetoric, Kerry displays no convictions. Unfortunately, with his record, Kerry displays convictions of the wrong and dangerous kind, such as appeasement of enemies, weakness on national defense, an unwillingness to use military power, etc.

In a time of war, Kerry is no acceptable option. Someone like Lieberman would have been on the Dems side, but Kerry is the worst choice possible. I mean, Kerry told us we couldn't defeat communism, and now wants to only contain terrorism to the point of making it some "nuisance"...sound familiar? Kerry is the ultimate defeatist when it comes to America...

The way I see it, the last four years have been the Left stepping up and playing the Right's game

This is my point. You believe you are justified in turnabout. Blame us for what Clinton did to himself and pull out the stops (like memogate) to go after Bush. But we didn't do Clinton in and so your turnabout looks unprovoked to us. Democracy requires some common ground and a certain amount of trust.

Both are at an all time low.

The blue dress was real. The memos were fake. Perhaps insignificant details to some, but for me telling indicators of the pathology.

If Kerry wins, and I hope not, I'll support him when and if we go to a national voter registration such that a) you have to show proof of citizenship to register, b) you can only be registered in one state and one precinct only, and c) you have to show a government issued photo ID to vote.

The system is so ripe with the potential of voter fraud now that either side can make a claim of stolen elections -- though I believe that Republican values would generally make fraud less likely by Rebublicans, though I'm sure it happens there too.

Then after we get elections where we know there is a system where fraud is harder (someone will always find a way to beat the system), I'd like to vote out a lot of Rebublicans and Democrats alike, as the "system" is so rigged to favor incumbants with special interest money making all but a few be more or less bought off. The Democrats have sold out to the unions and related special interests, and the Republicans in some case have been bought off also.

Put me in the camp of I'd like to clear out a lot of incumbent members of Congress, but I'll stick with Bush over Kerry all day.

I often hear the comparison between today's anti-Bush sentiments and the anti-Clinton sentiments of the 90s. And I don't think these cases are parallel at all.

I don't remember any serious fallout resulting from the media's Clinton-hunting. It seems to me that he got what he deserved. He lied under oath (duh!) and got impeached for it (why didn't he have the eff-ing sense to say, "it's none of your business"?). And I'd like to comment here that I voted for the guy.

But there have most definitely been consequences to the press's hatred of GWB. To name one, the press has suppressed bad news about the UN and the Oil for Food scandal. Without a doubt, if a Democrat were in office, the press would be all over this story. But if the press covers this story now, it puts Kerry's policy into question, and that might favor GWB, and the press just won't go there.

I don't remember anyone in the mainstream (or non mainstream for that matter) comparing Clinton to Hitler or calling him a facist.

Indeed.

I don't recall Gore/Lieberman HQ throughout the country being vandelized

I don't recall vandalization of private property just because someone put a bumper sticker on that the other didn't like.

I don't recall right-leaning protest groups pushing and shoving left-leaning protesters, attempting to stifle their right to speak.

I don't recall Democrats being in fear for their safety or being humiliated for their support of Clinton either.

I don't recall Clinton being called "Stalin" or "Hitler". (Though the term "socialist" had been bantied about)

I don't recall a bunch of Hollywood idiots presuming to tell us yokels how stupid we are to consider re-electing Clinton for four more years.

I don't recall many of Clinton's judicial appointees being held up in confirmation.

But I DO recall Reagan being accused of spreading AIDS, and threatening to blow up the planet on a whim because he was an idiot.

Oh, and I don't recall a UK newspaper posting an article by a so-called comedian who has assasination fantasies about Clinton either.

You are kidding aren't you? I don't remember anyone in the mainstream (or non mainstream for that matter) comparing Clinton to Hitler or calling him a facist

Did you forget about Ruby Ridge and Waco? If I remember correctly, it was the NRA newsletter that labelled the ATF "jack-booted thugs".

Anyways, the right is leery of using the term "fascist". They much prefer "socialist" or "communist". You can't walk twenty feet in a Red State before you hear Dems or libs characterized as "socialists" or "communists".

-Fe Wm.

Did you forget about Ruby Ridge and Waco? If I remember correctly, it was the NRA newsletter that labelled the ATF "jack-booted thugs"

The ATF, not Clinton.
Besides the ATF ARE jack-booted thugs, no matter what President is in office.

Part of the blame can be levied on Janet Reno as well.

And then, there's Elian Gonzalez...wonder how life in Cuba is going for him?

Anyways, the right is leery of using the term "fascist". They much prefer "socialist" or "communist". You can't walk twenty feet in a Red State before you hear Dems or libs characterized as "socialists" or "communists".

True, but then when you have big Communist/Socialist organizations like ANSWER being the shrill loud voice for Democrats, well, it's not very surprising, is it?

I don't see the Nazi Party or Aryan Nation out there lending their support for Bush.

And even still, it doesn't compare with calling Bush "Hitler", a man who slaughtered nearly a million jews and others to promote racial purity.

I have yet to hear a Democrat given a similar epithet. The worse I have heard is that Kerry is "French", which only brings up images of wine-drinking and, er, socialism. :)

True, but then when you have big Communist/Socialist organizations like ANSWER being the shrill loud voice for Democrats, well, it's not very surprising, is it?

I haven't even HEARD of these guys. Think they could go toe-to-toe with the Michigan Militia?

-Fe Wm.

Restatement for clarity:

A mother bear incorrectly believes an unwitting hiker is a danger to her cub so she attacks. Unfortunately the well armed hiker has no choice but to shoot the bear.

False beliefs can be dangerous.

The belief that Clinton’s problems were the result of right wing conspiracies.

The belief that Bush stole the 2000 election.

The belief that Republicans and Christians are outright or borderline fascists.

These are false beliefs yet they place US democracy in real danger because of the tactics they justify. We may have no choice but to escalate in our own defense.

And then, there's Elian Gonzalez...wonder how life in Cuba is going for him?

Haha! Dumbest. Wedge-issue. Ever. At least for us non-Cubans. Apparently, there's a "cuteness" clause in immigration law.

-Fe Wm.

Zdravstvuitye, Boris,

We may have no choice but to escalate in our own defense.

I asked you to clarify and specify, not restate. What is this "escalation" and "shoot the bear"?

You're not going to fantasize whilst polishing your firearms like that poster on the other thread, are you?

-Fe Wm.

First off, I've made no accusations of fascism or "Hitler-ism" here, but since the term "Fascism" is being bandied about so freely, let's see what is meant by that.

Mussolini held that fascism is simple the confluence of corporate interests and government. In point of fact, he thought "fascism" a misguided term, and felt his regime should more properly be called "corporatism".

While, again, not calling Republicans or Christians (!?!) fascists (or borderline fascists), I think that this confluence of business interests and government is something many Dems and libs are concerned about.

-Fe Wm.

From my first post in this thread:

Trash the war, trash the economy to win the election. When both sides start to play that game, we are in the next civil war long before the shooting starts.

Has someone forgotten the original subject being discussed? Or should we drop that and just call each other names?

International Answer and NIMN provide a fine example of the resurgence of the post-Soviet International Left and it's infiltration of the Democratic Party, American Unions, Universities and the American political process. Yet some argue there are no socialist or communist Democrats, and recoil at the use of those terms. In an earlier post, Just Me made a great point: "...we are in the proccess of an ideological civil war..." This is most true regarding the present battle for the soul of the Democratic Party and its future. The Leftist agenda appears to be a direct attempt to "internationalize" the Democratic Party itself. Under Clinton, this was rejected. Under Kerry, it is embraced. Here, under Kerry, I see a resurgence of Stalinistic temperament, authoritarianism, lack of accountability, and a cult of personality in today's Democratic Party that improperly places partsianship before the national interest. This was Zell Miller's complaint. From what I have seen, I think he was spot on.

When both sides start to play that game

Do you remember the Reagan/ Carter campaign of 1980? Pretty nasty stuff - "stagflation," trashing of the economy, as you put it, "weak abroad," referring to Carter's alleged ineptitude regarding radical Islamicists. Dirty stuff.

And I don't know if you've been following this, but a whole lot of Americans were against the invasion of Iraq from day one. It's not just electioneering.

Yes, I lament the prevailance of gotcha journalism and negative attack campaigns, but don't deign to tell me that this hasn't been Mr. Rove's playbook all along. His history includes fake wiretaps and "he's a pedophile" whispering campaigns. He's as dirty as they get.

Speaking of which, I'll tip you off to what appears to be the latest Dem October surprise - yep - it's questions about Mr. Bush's manditory community service during his misspent youth. Seems the community organizers have decided to, now of all times, come clean about their fond memories.

I think it's a bad idea, and I hope that Team Kerry won't touch it with a pole.

-Fe Wm.

Hey willem,

You're not voting LaRouche, are you? I think I saw some of those points made over on his website.

-Fe Wm.

I hadn't heard of them before, but NIMN seems to be a group of Jews who are against Israel's policy in Palestine. Truth be told, Sharon's policies have seemed a bit hard to justify. On the other hand, most Democratic Jews I've known are supportive of Israel.

ANSWER's website has Kerry and Bush on either side of message pointing out that both will continue the occupation of Iraq. They don't strike me as Democratic faithfuls.

But in what way are these Stalinist? The hero-worship and Stalinist cult of personality you talk about is clearly lacking with respect to Mr. Kerry - as much of his support comes from a visceral opposition to Mr. Bush as it does from an admiration of Mr. Kerry.

As for a lack of accountability on the DEMOCRATIC side? I can only hope you're being facetious.

-Fe Wm.

Hey redox,

I forgot all about Larouche. He picked up on it too? How interesting.

But shouldn't we all sharpen our concern about the growing normalization of Identity Politics? Shouldn't we fear those who endeavor to value people in terms of their identification with a particular group?

An absence of intellectual vigor is often masked with cynicism and contempt. Sloth is among the most subtle of sins, in my thinking, second only to Hubris. Both permeate the Bigotries of our modern era.

I worry we're missing the real shifts set loose in our contemporary age; that we lack the common terms and models needed to get our minds around what is happening. Reified thinking does little to examine itself and factoids do even less to protect us from what may come.

Perhaps some may call it paraniod; even hyperbolic. For me, I see us having entered a new era in human civilization facilitated by unanticipated yields in technology, unprecidented transportation and ecological compression phenomena.

One simple mutation in Thai bird flu would change the world as we know it.

And yet we fiddle on. Perhaps we are all more like Lyndon than we are willing to admit.

NIMN = Not In My Name

OK wingnut, one by one

I don't recall Gore/Lieberman HQ throughout the country being vandelized

--Do you remember the Republican mob in Palm Beach County?

I don't recall vandalization of private property just because someone put a bumper sticker on that the other didn't like.

--That's happening on both sides.See Google. Also see: OK City, but I guess that's "public property". Or maybe you'd like to disown the right-wing nuts who get caught.

I don't recall right-leaning protest groups pushing and shoving left-leaning protesters, attempting to stifle their right to speak.

--You ain't been to NYC under your pal Rudy. Many other places, left-leaning protesters don't gather, or haven't you noticed. Shit, its dangerous to be a colllege baseball fan.

I don't recall Democrats being in fear for their safety or being humiliated for their support of Clinton either.

--Nah. Let's say most gays are Democrats. More minorities are Democrats. Wonder how Matthew Shepard would've voted. Three strikes you're out; lifetime drug penalties for marijuana possession (in prisons where rape is used as administration mechanism)---you're right, pal, America these days is a real mellow place for those on the left willing to take on the law.

I don't recall Clinton being called "Stalin" or "Hitler". (Though the term "socialist" had been bantied about)

-- Nah, the Right just said that he molested his daughter and killed his counsel and participated in a never-subtantiated Whitewater scandal and spent $70 million on a jerk-off of a prosecutor and called him a traitor and a criminal and a draft-dodger. Again, your pal, Limbaugh, that fiend, attacked his daughter in her early teen years.

I don't recall a bunch of Hollywood idiots presuming to tell us yokels how stupid we are to consider re-electing Clinton for four more years.

--Nah, Heston loved Clinton, so did Ron Silver, Dennis Miller and the other B actresses/

I don't recall many of Clinton's judicial appointees being held up in confirmation.
--Is it purple kool-aid?

But I DO recall Reagan being accused of spreading AIDS, and threatening to blow up the planet on a whim because he was an idiot.
--Only said because --the first is true through inaction (AIDS not mentioned till 86) and the second, well, I think Nancy would've told Ronnie that blowing up the planet was serious (it would have changed the astrology readings, for starters :)

Back on topic. Yeah, actually I have thought about today's climate being awfully close to civil war. Of the elections I remember, not one of them had the words "I just really hate..(whomever)" used over and over in ordinary political discourse.It is not as if we are debating which is the better policy, it is more like we are defending our view of what America is and is not. It is as if we are challenging each other's reality systems. It is the biggest rift I have ever seen inside the country. It does worry me. Both sides are so intense and if there are any undecided people out there REALLY, then I sure haven't seen them.It all seems so personal after9/11.I don't see us shooting at each other, but I do see the same kind of obstructionism that has characterized the last couple of years continuing, no matter who is elected. Unfortunately, that is good for Al Qaeda and not good for us. Now, if all you democrats would just wake up and see that I am right and vote for Bush, then all would be just fine!

OK wingnut, one by one

You assume much. I must be a Democrat Wingnut, since I voted for Gore (to my chagrin in 2000).

-Do you remember the Republican mob in Palm Beach County?

Oh, so protesters are mobs, eh?
I seem to recall a similar "mob" of Democrats there as well:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/19/recount.palm.beach/

That's happening on both sides.See Google. Also see: OK City, but I guess that's "public property". Or maybe you'd like to disown the right-wing nuts who get caught.

You might try a link. See "Google", indeed. Want to give us some keywords at the very least? Perhaps link a few stories?

This blogger has compiled quite a list of stories.
http://truebluegal.blogspot.com/

--You ain't been to NYC under your pal Rudy. Many other places, left-leaning protesters don't gather, or haven't you noticed. Shit, its dangerous to be a colllege baseball fan.

Again, you assume much. I'm from New York (Brooklyn) originally, and I lived there during Rudy's tenure. What does baseball have to do with it? Left-leaning protesters gather ALOT, or have you not heard of Seattle and the WTO protests/riots? My brother, during the GOP Convention bore witness to a few shouting/shoving matches from the left. Go do a search on Protest Warrior some time.

--Nah. Let's say most gays are Democrats. More minorities are Democrats. Wonder how Matthew Shepard would've voted. Three strikes you're out; lifetime drug penalties for marijuana possession (in prisons where rape is used as administration mechanism)---you're right, pal, America these days is a real mellow place for those on the left willing to take on the law

Ah, I see...so most criminals (three strikes, etc) are Democrats as well. Well, thanks for that, but it has nothing to do with the current election atmosphere. And minorites/gays are not in fear because they are Democrats. And minorities (for example, blacks) have more to fear from other blacks than whites (far more black-on-black crime than black-on-white).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm

-- Nah, the Right just said that he molested his daughter

News to me...anyone else hear of this?

and killed his counsel

Only the true far-out whacko right believes that. Certainly the mainstream right never gave that credence. I (as a Clinton Democrat) certainly didn't.

and participated in a never-subtantiated Whitewater scandal and spent $70 million on a jerk-off of a prosecutor

Appointed by Democrats, who are experts at the whole Independent Council nonsense from the 80s onward...

and called him a traitor and a criminal and a draft-dodger.

I would appreciate some quotes from Kenneth Starr regarding his views on the traitor/draft-dodging bit.

Again, your pal, Limbaugh,

Limbaugh is a bag of bluster, and if he and Al Franken were ever to get near each other, like matter to anti-matter, they would cancel each other out.

that fiend, attacked his daughter in her early teen years.

You are going on about one man, and not addressing the conservatives in general. Furthermore, you have avoided the whole question about "Bush=Hitler" entirely.

Nah, Heston loved Clinton, so did Ron Silver, Dennis Miller and the other B actresses

You are right...Ron Silver did love Clinton, and still does. So, how is this a rebuttal to my comment, exactly?

--Is it purple kool-aid?

I see that you have run out of what few arguments you had in the first place. Besides, I think the far-left has hoarding it all in the past year anyway.

-Only said because --the first is true through inaction (AIDS not mentioned till 86)

Not many political leaders of EITHER side were mentioning it until fairly late in the game. At the beginning of the epidemic, it was still known as the "gay plague" and "GRID", it was little known at the time to the public at large. Nevertheless, Reagan did begin funding for research as early as 1981 (he signed this budget off:)

http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/96-293.pdf

And he also address a question vis-a-vis AIDS in 1985:

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1985/91785c.htm

and the second, well, I think Nancy would've told Ronnie that blowing up the planet was serious (it would have changed the astrology readings, for starters :)

Brush up on your sarcasm, it needs work.

I doubt you will be able to come back with some reasonable rebuttals to the links/statements I provide, so I wish you well in your wonderful delusions. Please don't play with any sharp knives on Nov 3rd after Bush pulls in the 53% votes that I'm personally projecting.

Take care, sweetiekins. And remember...

"All you need is love, love, love..."

I haven't even HEARD of these guys. Think they could go toe-to-toe with the Michigan Militia?

You are kidding? Never heard of International ANSWER? They were all OVER the news during the protests in the runup to the Iraq War. They were a big faction of the protesters in NYC during the GOP Convention.

Anyway, read up on them:
www.internationalanswer.org

As for the MI Militia, well, IA has more people as far as numbers, but the MM are better armed, I think. (Then again, if IA can get the support of Hamas...)

Do you remember the Reagan/ Carter campaign of 1980? Pretty nasty stuff - "stagflation," trashing of the economy, as you put it, "weak abroad," referring to Carter's alleged ineptitude regarding radical Islamicists. Dirty stuff.

But with quite a bit of truth to it, I'm afraid. I'm 35, and I clearly remember the late 70s. Dad would often have to wait in line at the gas station for an hour to 90 minutes, usually with a 10 gallon ration. When we lived in Ohio at the time, the cost of heating was so expensive that my school shut down for a month in February. Inflation was in double digits at the time. The 70s were the decade of hijacking and bomb threats from the likes of the PLO (Arafat's old job) and PFLP. And our military might and foreign policies were at their weakest. You recall that Vietnam had just concluded, the defense budget had been slashed to it's lowest levels in decades, and the USSR was on a massive buildup of ICBMs and other nuclear toys.

It is the biggest rift I have ever seen inside the country. It does worry me.

Indeed. If Lieberman had been nominated, there would have been a far better chance of Bush losing. Why, oh, why Dean, or Kerry?

Oh, and for more on ANSWER, you might want to peruse Bill's facinating entries on them. Start with this one:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000248.html

Re: Above post

It sort of illustrates what kind of people these guys are, and the far-left in general, which have taken over the DNC of late.

You are kidding? Never heard of International ANSWER? They were all OVER the news during the protests in the runup to the Iraq War.

Nah. I'm a mainstream (but dedicated) Democrat. I have just about as much chance of running into patchouli-scented, beaded war protesters or WTO rioters as you do of running into embunkered survivalists, racial-purity nativists or segregationalist dinosaurs.

-Fe Wm.

But with quite a bit of truth to it, I'm afraid. I'm 35, and I clearly remember the late 70s. Dad would often have to wait in line at the gas station for an hour to 90 minutes, usually with a 10 gallon ration.

I don't deny that things (the economy and the international situation) were rough in the late '70's, nor am I suggesting that Reagan running against these was "out of bounds." I was responding to a poster who basically asserted that campaigning "against the war" or "against the economy" was not fair game, and was being perpetrated as a kind of novelty by the Democrats.

-Fe Wm.

Indeed. If Lieberman had been nominated, there would have been a far better chance of Bush losing. Why, oh, why Dean, or Kerry?

Mastly because Lieberman is not a mainstream Democrat, is a pawn of Big Insurance, and holds some batty Social positions. He got a pass by the Dems in '04 out of tokenism and the fact that he was just a VP position. I agree with Lincoln Chaffee much more than I do with Mr. Bush, but don't really think he'd earn the support of the Republican party faithful in a national race.

-Fe Wm.

Just a couple of fact-checking points. Amir Taheri isn't actually Arab. He's Iranian, now living in Paris. He's internationally syndicated, with his columns appearing in major papers around the world. He's also one of the most astute observers of the Middle East, in my opinion.

The Arab News has an editorial today (10/26) that, while applauding the elections in Afghanistan, suggests that the Democrats get over their "Bush wasn't elected" meme as it damages the entire concept of democracy.

http://xrdarabia.org/blog/archives/2004/10/25/editorial-good-news-from-kabul/

This is twice you have misquoted me.

a poster who basically asserted that campaigning "against the war" or "against the economy" was not fair game,

And

they [The American Left] place US democracy in real danger because of the tactics they justify. We may have no choice but to shoot the bear.

Rather than make a snide comment about your reading comprehension I clarified the second point for you.

The first comment about the war and the economy refered to crossing the line in a way that damages the economic recovery and the war effort.

When both sides become willing to wreak havok on our democracy for political power, we have civil war, and your side will lose. Again.

Izvanitye, pozhalusta, Boris.

The first comment about the war and the economy refered to crossing the line in a way that damages the economic recovery and the war effort.

So - are you saying that the manner in which Reagan criticized Carter's economy and international effort was NOT damaging, but the manner in which Kerry criticizes Bush's stewardship of the economy and his conduct of the war IS damaging? Where do you draw this line? What are the precise standards for what opinions can or cannot be expressed? If Mr. Kerry wins the election, he'll roll back the tax cut on the very wealthy - will it be your right to criticize this move? Will your criticism be harmful to the economy?

The right was extremely active in criticism of Mr. Clinton (and, I might add, his wars AND his economies) while he was in office. Why was it patriotism then but treason now?

-Fe Wm.

Izvanitye, pozhalusta, Boris.

??? ?? ?????????? ???????? ??-?????? ??????

Just wondering...

Your comrade,
Cheshirecat

Izvanitye, pozhalusta, Boris.

??? ?? ?????????? ???????? ??-?????? ??????

Vsye miy sobirayemcya govorit' po-russki zdyes'?

Just wondering...

Your comrade,
Cheshirecat

Reagan criticized Carter's economy and international effort

Did Reagan damage Carter's good economy and international success?

I voted for Carter in '80, this is not comparable. Reagan changed my mind and only a moonbat would suggest he knowingly put US democracy at risk to win an election.

Because of your unbroken record of deliberately missing the point, I request you no longer quote or paraphrase me. You can make whatever points you want without falsely putting words in my mouth.

7943 You can take Generic Viagra to cure ed. We also offer name brand Viagra great mexican wood buy Generic Viagra and for that soreness Tramadol .... seeking Soma

6069 Offering online casino with overnight delivery. Also, If your looking for casino online this is a good site to visit.

178 http://www.777-blackjack.com
online blackjack
blackjack

6879 phenterminedebt consolidation

3812 http://video-poker.ownsthis.com

this is a site for video poker. kick back, relax and online video poker.

8620 http://texas-hold-em-w.fateback.com
texas hold em
online texas hold em

1397 http://www.online-casinos-w.com
online casinos

4679 Ttry playing online pokeronline.

726

Kona Coffee
Starbucks Coffee
Jamaica Blue Mountain
Coffee

coffee maker
gourmet coffee
green mountain coffee
kenya coffee
organic coffee
specialty coffee
folgers coffee
coffee brewers
costa rica coffee
Tullys Coffee
Millstone Coffee
coffee grinder

http://www.coffee-delivered.com

6015 count sheep or use ambien for your
sleeping pill needs. Cialis , Tramadol,
viagra online, Adipex,
Butalbital Soma ,
generic viagra