OT: Conservatives: Take your best shots at the Dem Candidates

[Saint Johnny B]

Conservatives, right-wingers, libertarians, greens, etc, etc, here is your chance to tell everyone about the field of Democratic Presidential Candidates. Today, I heard Dick Morris or some other talking-head consultant say Hillary may jump into the race. But as of today, there are about 9 announced democratic candidates. Take your best shots at them. Are any of them honest? Gephardt Dean Graham Edwards Lieberman Sharpton Kerry Kucinich Braun Hillary (Maybe?) Please try to be as factual as you can. I believe they all have voting records which can be defended or fairly attacked.

[Jode]

Gephardt - will regale voters with stories of the support he gets from his dear mother, his "workin' man" labor union friends, his rich friends who say they don't want a tax cut, and Santa Claus. Guess which one of these four actually exists. Will have a crisis of conscience over whether to toe the "Bush lied to get us into Iraq" line, or to pimp out the photo of him standing literally shoulder-to-shoulder with the president. Dean - will make a good show of it until some hard-nosed GOP investigators tell people about his REAL reputation in Vermont. Or, his temper may give him an aneurysm before the primaries and his head will explode. Graham - will eventually consider the whole race to be a waste of valuable time he could be using to write in his diary and will drop out. It's a shame that the only Dem candidate with the foreign policy and intelligence expertise to be a viable president in these dangerous times is also... well... kind of a loony. Edwards - will drop out after he can no longer hide the fact that he is a fabulously wealthy trial lawyer with little to no idea about the life of the 'regular guys' he praises. Lieberman - will never ever EVER live down the 2000 election. Plus, who wants a president with a voice like that? I keep expecting him to say, "Heavens to Murgatroyd!" any minute. A good guy, one who unfortunately hitched his wagon to the wrong mule a couple of years ago, but not very presidential. He'd make a great Senate minority leader or Cabinet official, though. Sharpton - Two words: [i]Tawana Brawley.[/i] And that's all I have to say about that. Kerry - Have you heard? He served in the Vietnam War, and he's seeking regime change in the US. He is the most presidential-looking of the crowd, but all the ketchup money in the world won't get him elected. By the way, he served in Vietnam. Kucinich - so liberal he makes Dean look like G. Gordon Liddy. Not a chance in hell. Hillary - people are more tired of the Clintons than anyone in the press, or certainly in the Clintons' running circles, will give us credit for. I don't think the country would enjoy reliving the despicable Roman orgy that was the Clinton White House. You forgot Carol Moseley Braun. So has everyone else.

[Saint Johnny B]

So, you're attacking Edwards simply because he is a rich lawyer? Exactly what kind of cases did he win to become rich? Got any details? I don't believe Hillary was in on any of the orgies, think about that. I did add Braun. Thank you for the reminder. I suppose people can defend or attack these candidates for their stand on the issues, that seems fair. However, Iraq is not the only issue facing this country. For example, you've got NAFTA, and the new CAFTA proposal, and more important to musicians and songwriters, positions on copyright, downloads, and media consolidation. And there are positions and voting records on the environment, education, and getting the economy going again.

[Saint Johnny B]

Calling Mr Wow. Here's your chance to spread your hatred against all things liberal. At least you are little better than that moron of morons, a guy called "Warrior," who spews nothing but hatred for liberals. His claim to fame? World Wide Wrestler. Those guys are all bad play-actors. I'd say he's qualified to call himself a "conservative." That's why they put him on CSPAN. But here, you can try your hand at intelligent attacks, that is, if you have any.

[6 stringer]

I like Kucinich 'cuz he wants to repeal NAFTA. I lost my job because the company closed down and the damn US goverment lent them the money to build a new plant overseas.

[Addix Metzatricity]

[quote]Originally posted by Unemployed: [b]I like Kucinich 'cuz he wants to repeal NAFTA. I lost my job because the company closed down and the damn US goverment lent them the money to build a new plant overseas.[/b][/quote]Um... The [b]North American Free Trade Agreement[/b] is just that... North America, which doesn't even include a sea.

[Wow]

[quote] So, you're attacking Edwards simply because he is a rich lawyer? Exactly what kind of cases did he win to become rich? Got any details? [/quote]He was an ambulance chaser . :wave:

[Wow]

Sharpton for President. :idea:

[rumpelstiltskin.]

[quote]Originally posted by Unemployed: [b]I like Kucinich 'cuz he wants to repeal NAFTA. I lost my job because the company closed down and the damn US goverment lent them the money to build a new plant overseas.[/b][/quote]the greater injustice in that sentence is not "NAFTA", but "the damn US government lent them the money". why don't you oppose a government that takes money from people in order to lend it to businesses? doesn't that have a lot more to do with your joblessness than NAFTA? robb.

[Dak Lander]

All you gotta know is how the dems in Sacramento, in one of their many sinister meetings forgot they had their mics turned on and everyone in the capitol heard them talking about how well a budget stalemate would do for the democat's cause amongst other really bright, insightful, helpful to the California economic problems & etc. I'm a non-partisan voter & I've come to realize this. The democrats and I know everything there is to know about anything and everything. They know everything except they're damned fools & I know that!

[Felix_dup1]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]So, you're attacking Edwards simply because he is a rich lawyer?[/b][/quote]When was the last time we had a president who [i]wasn't[/i] a rich lawyer?

[whitefang]

[quote]Originally posted by felix: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]So, you're attacking Edwards simply because he is a rich lawyer?[/b][/quote]When was the last time we had a president who [i]wasn't[/i] a rich lawyer?[/b][/quote]Jimmy Carter. He was a rich PEANUT farmer! ;) The only Democrat I'm considering is Kerry. So far. And he probably won't get the nomination 'cause BOTH parties give it to the Bozos! Whitefang

[Addix Metzatricity]

[quote]Originally posted by whitefang: [b] [quote]Originally posted by felix: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]So, you're attacking Edwards simply because he is a rich lawyer?[/b][/quote]When was the last time we had a president who [i]wasn't[/i] a rich lawyer?[/b][/quote]Jimmy Carter. He was a rich PEANUT farmer! ;) [/b][/quote]When's the last time we had a rich lawyer who [i]wasn't[/i] a peanut farmer?

[GZsound]

Rather than attack each person individually, how about somebody giving us a clue as to what they offer? So far, all I hear from the democratic side is "vote for me because I'm not him". And I do not agree Hillary is not a viable candidate. I think the rest of the group is scared to death she will declare for 2004. They would simply fall off the face of the planet. John Kerry, the Vietnam war hero, has one small problem. He was strongly behind attacking Iraq in 98 and 99 and seems to have done a complete reversal now that we have a Republican administration. Does this flip flopping bother anybody? Again, other than that, I don't have a clue what they offer as a solution to our problems since they spend all their time launching attacks. I would like to know if they support the military, if they will work to increase the effectiveness of our intelligence community (ever heard of the Toricelli doctrine?), what they would do to cut spending and balance the budget, How they would create more jobs without growing government jobs, etc. And if they would be sending our troops all over the world as a police force under the control of the UN or NATO command. If they would repeal NAFTA, repeal the great Clinton land grab that closed thousands of acres of public lands without a hearing or a vote, etc. So far, none of them seems to have any real connection with the public and it would be nice to hear some actual real ideas from these folks. If they keep up the rant without offering any solutions and we happen to find WMD, Saddam and/or Osama or Mulla Omar, they will have a lot of the smoke taken out of their one trick pony speeches..

[alcohol]

I don't have a problem with flip flopping on Iraq, because I did a flip flop myself. Indeed I have a problem with anyone who hasn't flil flopped on Iraq. Changing one's mind when you;ve discovered your beliefs are to be wrong is a credit, not a discredit. When Bush said he had inofrmation that Iraq had WMD and Colin Powell gave his presentation to the UN. I gave them both the benefit of the the doubt, though intuitively I thought something was askew. Especially when the evidence presented by Powell seemed so underwhelming. The flip flop came when this already weak evidence turned out to be false. If your argument for going to war is based on false evidence, you no longer have a valid argument. In the case of Iraq - flip flopping is good. If you haven't flipped flopped you're bad, or to be more tactiful a gullible idiot. :( or an incorrigible partisan, or a depraved Bush supporter, an obsequious yes man, an inveterate syncophant..... :(

[Wow]

[quote]I don't have a problem with flip flopping on Iraq, because I did a flip flop myself. Indeed I have a problem with anyone who hasn't flil flopped on Iraq. Changing one's mind when you;ve discovered your beliefs are to be wrong is a credit, not a discredit [/quote]Its OK to put politics above your moral values. :p

[alcohol]

No it's not OK to put politics above your moral values. That's my perception of a Bush apologist. Either wittingly or unwittingly they have accepted falsehoods and are defending them rather than accept the political fallout. If you think supporting Bush and defending him is better than the consequences of a Democratic President or a Democratic Congress then you are placing partisan politics over the moral value of honesty. You have decided that our soldiers dying for ostensibly false reasons was ok because a Republican President made the decision. That's fucked and that's my perception of a Bush supporter. It's time that you flip flop WOW, have some moral integrity and courage.

[johnnie red]

I'm all for getting Bush out of the White House, but I don't believe the Democrats offer a real alternative to Bush. I can understand the "Anyone but Bush" sentiment building, but believe it's a dead end strategy, and runs counterposed to far more effective means of stopping war, fighting inequality and oppression, and in general, changing the world. Many who have come to despise Bush's "war on terrorism" have joined the "Anyone but Bush" crowd. But unfortunately, that has led many into supporting candidates who have blood on their hands themselves. Leiberman, for example, was hard on Bush prior to war for not being hawkish enough. Both Kerry and Edwards (and Leiberman) voted in favor of giving Bush a blank check in favor of war. Dean didn't, but always expressed his support for going to war on Iraq, but only under other conditions, like support from UN. But even if this were a US-led UN war (which is what it would have been), it still would have been a war for empire, it still would have produced military occupation, it still would have accepted the lies of the WMD threat, it still would have included the destructive Shock & Awe strategy. It still would have been disgusting. These democratic candidates might have taken a different tactical approach - more multilateralism than Bush's virtual go-at-it-alone approach - but it's NOT in any way an approach that any of us should support. War of course isn't the only question. But it's worth noting that Democratic presidents in recent decades (and in general throughout their history) haven't produced a leftward shift in politics in comparison to previous republican presidents. Just the opposite in fact. Carter's presidency brought a rightward shift after Ford, and in fact helped pave the way for the Reaganism that followed. Clinton actually succeeded in taking the country further rightward after Reagan and Bush, also paving the way for some of what we see with Bush now. Bush's "regime change" approach with Iraq actually became the official position of the US with the Clinton regime. The "war on terrorism" wouldn't have nearly the support it did, without the "humanitiarian interventions" of the Clinton terms, which legitimized the US's "right" to police the world (and produced death and more crises as well). Even Clinton's Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 (?) was a stepping-stone to Bush's even more draconian Patriot Act, the worst attack on our civil liberties this country has seen in decades, which I might add a great number of Democrats voted in support. None of this really should come as a surprise for a couple reasons. First, the Democrats are a bosses party, just like the Republicans. They get the vast majority of their financial support from the rich, and thus they pursue a fundamentally similar corporate agenda to the Bush Administration, even if they take a little bit of a different approach. For example, Bush hands out tax cuts for the rich, the Democrats support fiscal responsibility. Both tactics mean slashing social spending, and essentially a growth in economic inequality. The other reason is that while the Democrats are truly a "lesser evil," they are still an evil, and in fact the politics of lesser evilism, often give you the lesser evil and the more evil. Meaning, those who care about the rights of women, minorities, workers, gays, etc., etc., or who want to end war, tend to keep their mouths closed when it comes to criticizing their Democrats, because they put all their hopes in electing someone from that party. When the democrats feel like they have the support of their more left-wing base who are so fearful of the right they'll vote for anything to the left of it, the democrats then are free to move to the right to gain more supporters on the right. This is the reasoning for the centrist approach of the Democrats. They always move to the "center" in elections and once in office. Under these circumstances, the center of course always pushes more and more to the right. All this has played out over and over and over and over again. For example, prior to the '64 elections, the slogan of the peace/anti-war movements was "Half the Way with LBJ," who ran as a Democrat opposed to war. What was the result? Johnson's term saw the escalation of the Vietnam War all the way up until he left office. In fact it wasn't till the Republican Nixon was in office that the US began to pull out of war. As well, it was Nixon's term that produced the winning of affirmative action, abortion rights, and a 4-year abolishment of the death penalty. That was the last period of real progressive social change. But it came from mass struggles from below - from the anti-war movement to the civil rights/black power movement, to womens rights and gay rights struggles. These were the things that shifted politics to the left, not the Democratic Party. Ever since those struggles have died down, politics have taken a continual shift towards the right. Considering the anger that is growing every day as Bush's lies are exposed, unemployment is on the rise, budget cuts are initiated across the country, etc. there is great potential for fighting for real change. People are angry. That partly explains why prior to the war on Iraq, millions of Americans took part in protests against war, in one way or another. Our hope lies in organizing that anger into a fighting movement that can challenge the pro-war, oppressive, exploitative policies of both the Democrats and Republicans. That's no immediate solution of course, but if organizations like NOW or NAACP, or organized labor, or all those furious with Bush right now put their efforts in building such a struggle from below rather than in support of the Democratic Party, then we'd have the power to beat back the drive to war and crises, whomever's in office.

[alcohol]

johnnie red, Nice essay and a good historical accounting of the past 40 years or so. I disagree with discounting a candidate for past support of Bush on the war on Iraq. The 9/11 situation really produced a formidible argument for preemptive war. If a nation state is officially antagonistic to the US and is ostensibly active in training and arming terrorist to attack the US, then in consideration of the 9/11 attack and it's devestating consequences then waiting to be attacked before responding is like sitting on one's hands and waiting for the inevitable. The Bush argument for attacking Iraq had cogency, it's problems were that the assumptions of the intelligence that that argument was built on were false. And worse, false by no mistake of our intelligence services but false by the process of cherry picking intelligence to support forgone conclusions. This was a deliberate misleading of the Congress and the American people. We've all been victimized by the Bush administration. What's even worse is that this deceit served the political purpose of getting Republicans elected in the 2002 elections. So I can discount past Democrats for supporting the war earlier. They gave the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt on going to war and trusted the veracity of his intelligence. I think any Presidendent is owed that until they've abused that trust. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Bush has abused that trust.

[pantonality]

I haven't seen this posted here so here's Jim Jefford's take on the last few years. Subject: Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) National Press Club Speech Second Anniversary of Decision to Leave the GOP - National Press Club - Two years ago, I was big news. I got to know many of you for the first time. I was followed in airports and recognized on the street. Network news people, who until then couldn't identify me as a Senator in a police line-up, were now calling my home number. Subsequent events put me back in my place: September 11th, two wars, the space shuttle disaster and a worsening economy took back the nation's attention -- as they should have done. Yet the reasons for my switch, while apparent to me then, have become painfully clear to me now. The events of the past two years have only heightened my concern over the President's veer to the right, and the poisoning of our democratic process of government. The promises of candidate Bush, who pledged to bring a new tone to Washington and packaged himself as a compassionate conservative, are unmet. On issue after issue the Bush Administration is not what it claims to be. Since coming into office, the President has dragged the Republican Party into short-sighted positions that maximize short-term gain while neglecting the long-term needs of families and the nation. Pundits asked after last November's election: will the President over-reach with his Republican majorities in the House and Senate? Well, President Bush hasn't just over-reached, he has set a new standard for extreme partisan politics that on many occasions has been supported by the Republican-controlled Congress. In place of thoughtful policy we now have superficial and cynical sound-bites. Instead of confronting pressing national problems, our President lands airplanes while Rome burns. While our troops search for W-M-D's in Iraq -- we have found our own W-M-D's right here in Washington -- at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They are President Bush's weapons of mass distortion, or better distraction. The Bush Administration says one thing and does another to take the focus off the present realities. Does he think we don't notice? In Iraq, we have seen the inexcusable results of what happens when the Bush Administration says one thing and does another. Last fall, the President said UN weapons inspectors would be allowed to do their job, but in reality, he didn't give them the time they needed. I am pleased to see calls for Congressional investigations to determine whether the President manipulated intelligence information to build support for the war. Why the hurry to invade a country and use military force in such an unprecedented manner? Where was the imminent threat to the United States? And where are the weapons of mass destruction? As he prepared to invade Iraq and win the support of other nations, the President promised the world that the US had a plan in place to rebuild that nation. But it quickly became apparent that there was no plan. While our military guarded the oilfields, we showed no compassion for the Iraqi people as we allowed their national treasures to be looted. All we see now is growing unrest with the US presence in Iraq. Every day we see more lawlessness, more upheaval and more US soldiers being killed. Is it any surprise that a recent Pell Research Center survey of 16,000 people from 20 nations shows a dramatic rise in distrust and skepticism toward the United States? Does he think we don't notice? His polls and famous advisors tell him to talk about compassion and job growth, and how he is helping Main Street. But that is all it is -- just talk. In reality, he adopts hard-right proposals that favor those who need help least, and neglect those who need help the most. In reality, we are now in the longest period of continued job loss since the Great Depression. Since the beginning of this Bush Administration, 2.7 million private sector jobs have been lost, and the number of unemployed Americans has increased by over 45 percent. In the first three months of this year alone, America has lost another half-million jobs. President Bush has said his tax plan is a "jobs growth package." But the only thing guaranteed to grow is the federal budget deficit. He says one thing and does another. Does he think we don't notice? We will be paying for his tax cuts with borrowed funds, money borrowed from our children and grandchildren who will be forced to foot the bill. And, according to reports, the Bush administration intends to ask for more tax cuts next year. The effect of these tax cuts will be enduring -- and enormously damaging. These tax cuts will widen the gap between rich and poor. These tax cuts help those who need it least and do nothing for those who need it most. These tax cuts provide a $90,000 tax cut for millionaires, while millions of parents with incomes under $26,000 will see no benefit from the increased child credit. This is compassion? Again, he says one thing and does another. Does he think we don't notice? President Bush is rashly piling up debt our nation can't afford even as he knows the really big bills are about to come due. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts a $300 billion deficit this fiscal year -- an all-time record. Some economists believe the deficit could approach $500 billion dollars in the near future. That's edging close to a troublingly high percentage of the economy. But the real problem is not this year or next. Rather, it's the long-term cost, combined with the budgetary hit coming just around the corner, when the baby boomers start to retire and put new huge demands on Social Security and Medicare. The administration highlighted this problem in its own budget documents, describing the real fiscal danger as the 18 trillion dollar shortfall -- yes, trillion with a "T" -- projected in those two programs. At the same time, it was recently disclosed the Bush administration shelved a report commissioned by its own Treasury Department that shows the U.S. currently faces future budget deficits totaling at least $44 trillion. The Bush tax cut will threaten the country's long-term well-being by starving the federal government of revenue for essential services, such as homeland security, transportation infrastructure, education and health care. Our States are bearing the brunt of our dismal economic conditions, and these cuts will brutalize them. One of the most disturbing effects of the economic downturn is the lack of state and federal funding for our educational system -- where States are laying off teachers, cutting school days and eliminating early childhood programs -- most of which have only just started. The President's advisors tell him to endlessly repeat "No Child Left Behind". But in the 17 months since that policy became law, we've seen something very different. Too many children are being left behind. President Bush says the new law will lead to stronger schools. I say it is all part of a quiet plan to starve our public schools so this country can move to vouchers and private school choice. As the President pushes tax cut after tax cut, his Administration still cannot find the funding to fulfill the federal government's commitment to special education -- where we still fall $12 billion short on a commitment we made to the States more than 25 years ago, to help them finance this federal constitutional mandate. According to school boards across the nation, the number one thing the federal government can do to support education is fully fund special ed. While pretending to have compassion for our schoolchildren, the approach of "No Child Left Behind" is heartless. It chronically under-funds our schools, it sets unattainable goals for our teachers, and it steals from schoolchildren the quality education they deserve. Once again, the Bush administration says one thing and does another. Does he think we don't notice? A recent New York Times report noted that combined budget deficits for 50 states are estimated to be between $52 billion and $82 billion, and the schools are taking the worst hit. In Oregon, 84 school districts closed their schools ahead of schedule -- some by as much as a month -- because the money ran out. This comes at a time when schools are faced with mounting pressure to meet the requirements of "No Child Left Behind" or face penalties. Now we see that states are cutting back on testing standards to avoid sanctions. In the President's home state of Texas, the State Board of Education voted to reduce the number of questions that students must answer correctly to pass the standard test, to 20 out of 36, from 24, for third-grade reading. And Texas is not alone. Michigan's standards had been among the nation's highest, which caused problems last year when 1,513 schools there were labeled under the law as needing improvement, more than in any other state. So Michigan officials lowered the percentage of students who must pass statewide tests to certify a school as making adequate progress. That reduced the number of schools "in need of improvement" to 216. In other words, we are 'dumbing down' our standards so the Bush Administration can say we have strengthened our schools. Saying one thing, doing another. In my home state of Vermont, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a resolution last week expressing its concerns over the policies and mandates of "No Child Left Behind". They noted that the law could cost Vermont up to three times more to implement than the federal government provides -- and maybe more -- "thereby placing a major burden on the state's strained financial resources." If this wasn't all bad enough, we learned last week that the U.S. Department of Education plans to spend a half-million dollars -- yes, a half-million dollars! -- on a public relations campaign aimed at quieting the critics of "No Child Left Behind". During three decades in Congress, I have never heard of such an ad campaign. Yet as schools are cutting early education programs for lack of money, the President has no problem with assembling an eight-person "communications" team to try and make a bad plan look good. Saying one thing, doing another. In an age now driven by scientific and technological advances, American students are falling behind. This is inexcusable. But despite warnings that have spanned three decades, we have done nothing to respond. "Before It's Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics & Science Teaching for the 21st Century," released in 2000, highlighted that problem. Recent reports of the performance of our country's students from both the Third International Mathematics and Science Study and the National Assessment of Educational Progress echo a dismal message of lackluster performance. In December of 2000 I met with President-elect Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas to discuss education. He assured me that education would be his top priority. But his actions speak louder than his words, and that promise clearly fell to the wayside long ago. The President says one thing, but does another. Perhaps this is most apparent when it comes to the environment. With a straight face, he talks about protecting resources for our children -- even as he abandons the federal protection of land and air and water as fast as he can. Does he think we don't notice? The Bush Administration continues to protect special interests and ignore public support for strong environmental protections and conservation measures. Candidate Bush said in September of 2000: "With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time." Those were heartening words for many of us. Unfortunately, just two months into his term, President Bush backed away from that statement, and abandoned his commitment to seek reductions in carbon dioxide -- the leading cause of global warming and climate change. And there has been no working together on anything. Saying one thing, and doing another. From the beginning, this Administration has relaxed environmental laws through de-regulation and lack of enforcement, and put forward legislative proposals long on public relations and short on substance. What Americans really need now is relief from air pollution, and swift and serious action to avert global warming. We have a right to breathe air that is not contaminated by pollution. At a minimum, we have a right to full and vigorous implementation of laws already on the books, such as the Clean Air Act. The devastation caused by dirty air is staggering. As many as sixty thousand premature deaths each year are linked to air pollution, according to an American Cancer Society study and researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health. I was proud to work with the first President Bush on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, when I was a Republican. I was proud to be chosen by the first President Bush as one of the lead Senate negotiators on that bill. He called our work, "a new chapter in our environmental history, and a new era for clean air." That was an example of what we could do -- together -- when we made a shared commitment to our environmental future. Now this President Bush insists on moving us backward, undoing his father's legacy and weakening our nation's environmental laws. This Bush Administration has put forward a plan mislabeled "Clear Skies." This bill weakens or eliminates current clean air programs, accelerates global warming, and saves only one-third of the lives that could be saved by the Clean Power Act. Worse, the Administration bill takes 20 years before its reduction targets are achieved. Does he think we won't notice? Well, we do notice. We do care. And it does matter. Some people might not have agreed with my decision to leave the GOP two years ago, but at least I did it for the reasons I said I did. I was honest about what brought me to that decision. What makes the actions of the Bush Administration so troublesome is the lack of honesty. It amounts, in the end, to a pattern of deception and distortion; ultimately that does not respect the wisdom of the American people. Thank you.

[GZsound]

These are interesting essays and contain a lot of good information. I do not support any politician that lies. However, since I vote and like to be a part of the process, that attitude has to be tempered with the understanding that we can't trust any of them. So it is always a crapshoot when we elect anybody from either party. I fully understand how nice it is to have a reason to attack an administration you disagree with. However, I really wish someone, some media outlet, anybody, would provide the facts about the 16 words in the state of the union speech. I also would like to find out, although probably not possible, how many people used those 16 words as the only reason they thought a war was a good idea. It would also be nice to know what intelligence the UN weapons inspectors, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc. were getting when they stated we should invade Iraq and remove the WMD. It would also be nice to know how a statement regarding what the British Intelligence agency is reporting becomes a lie when British Intelligence is standing behind the statement. Sort of like this: I report "Alchohol is stating all conservatives are Nazi's". Now, we know all conservatives aren't Nazi's. So did I lie when I said Alcohol is stating that? If Alcohol stands behind his statement, did I lie? Seems like a pretty simple question. It seems to me there are broad stretched statements being made by all politicians. I feel it is impossible to fully trust any of them but again, a decision who to support has to be made if you want to support any of them. Using the repeated mantra "he lied" is like seeing Clinton's clip "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" over and over and over and over ad nauseum. After a while, everybody just stops listening and besides, it has no basis on anything, including the facts. If anybody has proof positive that we can't trust a Republican president, but we can trust a Democratic president, simply based on which party they belong to, I would love to see it. But we all know that proof does not exist. Or at least most clear thinking adults should know it doesn't exist.

[alcohol]

GZ wrote: "But we all know that proof does not exist. Or at least most clear thinking adults should know it doesn't exist" We all know that the "at least most clear thinking adults should know it doesn't exist" statement is a begged question and therefore a logical fallacy. Would I be lying if I said GZ was guilty of using a logical fallacy? No I would be accurately stating the truth, even if he didn't stand up to his using a logical fallacy. :freak:

[Wow]

[quote] It would also be nice to know what intelligence the UN weapons inspectors, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc. were getting when they stated we should invade Iraq and remove the WMD. [/quote]Was the CIA at fault when we attacked in 98? We hit an asprin factory and people died. Should we fault the President or the CIA, or both.

[pantonality]

Mark, I have to agree that both the Democrats and the Republicans have been thoroughly corrupted by BIG $$$. Political integrity is truly an oxymoron. So alcohol do you really think we can't trust politicians based simply on which political team they're a member of. The fact is the political parties, most recently the extreme right have polarized the country. The left is equally guilty of tarring their political opposites with a broad brush. Frankly, it's a way of avoiding constructive discussion of the issues that divide us. The simple facts of history indicate that this debate has raged at least since the days of Jefferson and Hamilton. GZ's last post struck me as reasonable discussion. Alcohol, in all honesty I couldn't similarly dignify your subsequent post. While you may be very clever at ad hominem attacks, you failed to prove anything. Do you really strive to be that ineffective? Steve

[coyote]

There is a problem with this argument. Clinton specified "sexual relations" because that term is defined as, and synonymous with, sexual intercourse. The testimony involved said he received fellatio from, but did not have sexual intercourse with, Monica Lewinsky. Therefore, his use of the term "sexual relations" kept him *technically* on the side of truth - even as he clearly could be seen to be twisting language to do so. [quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b]Using the repeated mantra "he lied" is like seeing Clinton's clip "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" over and over and over and over ad nauseum. After a while, everybody just stops listening and besides, it has no basis on anything, including the facts.[/b][/quote]Anyway, this liberal Libertarian independent thinks the current Democratic field is weak. Which is a damn shame, because the Bush Bait'n'Switch Administration is severely damaging our economy, our credibility, and our Constitution. Then again, Bush was a weak candidate in all respects except for the $$$ and influence backing him, so maybe one of the Dems has a chance against him IF the Dems can raise enough $$ to compete with Bush's $200 Million war chest.

[alcohol]

[quote]Originally posted by pantonality: [b]Mark, I have to agree that both the Democrats and the Republicans have been thoroughly corrupted by BIG $$$. Political integrity is truly an oxymoron. So alcohol do you really think we can't trust politicians based simply on which political team they're a member of.[/quote]No, and nowhere have I stated that explicitly or implicity. Also, I take the idea that 'political integrity' is necessarily non existent as knee jerk cynicism. [quote] GZ's last post struck me as reasonable discussion. Alcohol, in all honesty I couldn't similarly dignify your subsequent post. While you may be very clever at ad hominem attacks, you failed to prove anything. Do you really strive to be that ineffective? [/quote]GZ's posts generally strike me as a jumble of confusions. I have given up on arguing effectively with him. Arguing with him feels likee this quote from Graham Green's, The Quiet American : "He was impregnably armoured by his good intentions and his ignorance." Another quote by me, for the purpose of irritation, because I'm hoping to prick the lid of his consciousness into enlightenment. So I wasn't trying to be effective. And it wasn't an ad hominem attack because I didn't accuse him or call him anything. I merely pointed out that he was using a begged question and therefore guilty of a logical fallacy. He should be grateful. I had some hope of being didactic instead of being effective.[/b]

[Saint Johnny B]

Loved the Sen. Jeffords article above and it seems pretty clear that he left the Republican party because Geo. Bush, Jr. "says one thing and does another." Most people call that total lack of integrity ---"lying." I believe Sen. Jeffords and would vote for him if he were running for president, I also admire John McCain. I am really proud of Rep. C.L Butch Otter (R. Idaho) who said yesterday on the foor of Congress that Bush's so-called Patriot Act was a serious attack on American's Civil Liberties. Rep Otter gave some really scary examples. But there Rep Otter stood, against both his own Republican Party and the Bush Admisistration for what Rep Otter believed in. You see folks, it often is all about the issues, and not party affiliation. But this tread was originally intended to discuss the positives and negatives of the crop of Democratic Candidates for President. Please, can we stay on topic and stick to the issues?

[Wow]

[quote]I believe Sen. Jeffords and would vote for him if he were running for president, [/quote]You would vote for jumpin' jim?

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by alcohol: GZ's posts generally strike me as a jumble of confusions. I have given up on arguing effectively with him.[/b] That explains a lot. Thank you for admitting you are confused. And you are correct in stating you have given up on effective argument. Your one trick pony attacks just don't make sense. [b]Arguing with him feels likee this quote from Graham Green's, The Quiet American : "He was impregnably armoured by his good intentions and his ignorance." Another quote by me, for the purpose of irritation, because I'm hoping to prick the lid of his consciousness into enlightenment.[/b] Another quote? What you have a complete volume of "greatest liberal quotes" laying around? [b]So I wasn't trying to be effective.{/b] At least you are being honest. The basic problem with you is there is no center to your ideology. It is all left, all liberals good, all conservatives bad, all the time. Not effective, adds nothing to the debate and it appears you post to somehow make yourself seem smarter than you actually are with your pocket book of quotations. And please start using spell check. Since you made such a big deal about my mispelling a word, I have noticed you seem to make a habit of it. Since you used it as a basis for an attack on my intelligence..you might practice what you preach.

[Saint Johnny B]

Not all conservatives are bad all the time, nor are all liberals bad all the time. Trying to cram people in these neat little boxes is a complete waste of time. It overlooks the depth and breadth of their voting records and stands on the issues. Further, we probably have not seen a really great liberal since the days of FDR. And to a lot of Americans, FDR was a great man, and a great President. It is certainly no sin to be a "real liberal" following the example of FDR. Today on the TV News, the former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee called for Bush's Impeachment. Senator Graham is calling for some honest government, so he gets some points in my book.