Howard Dean: A Vote For Nader Is A Vote For Bush [Archive]

gldstwmn

04-12-2004, 05:43 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/12/opinion/12DEAN.html?th

For Ralph Nader, but Not for President
By HOWARD DEAN

Published: April 12, 2004

BURLINGTON, Vt.

Everyone expects this year's presidential election to be decided by razor-thin margins in a few battleground states. Everyone also expects the candidacy of Ralph Nader to make the race between John Kerry and George Bush even closer. As I know from experience, however, voters have a way of proving everyone wrong.

Democrats are motivated to defeat the president this year. They've seen firsthand what three years of Bush administration policies have done to America. And they want to stop his policies from inflicting any more damage on working-class Americans, the environment, our international standing or a woman's right to choose.

Many Democrats also admire Ralph Nader's achievements, as I do. But if they truly want George Bush out of the White House, they won't vote for Ralph Nader in November.

Ralph Nader has built a remarkable legacy as a consumer advocate. Because of his tireless work, we have federal consumer protection laws and a federal department dedicated to the protection of our environment, and millions of defective motor vehicles are off the roads. And I campaigned against the very same corporate special interests that he has been criticizing longer than almost anyone else.

But I don't believe that the best way to do justice to Ralph Nader's legacy is to vote for him for president. Re-electing George Bush would undo everything Ralph Nader has worked for through his entire career and, in fact, could lead to the dismantling of many of his accomplishments.

Voting for Ralph Nader, or for any third-party candidate for president, means a vote for a candidate who has no realistic shot of winning the White House. To underscore the danger of voting for any third-party candidate in elections this close, a statistic from the 2000 campaign may prove useful: a total of eight third-party candidates won more votes than the difference between Al Gore and George Bush nationwide.

When I ended my bid for the presidency, I asked my supporters to continue our quest for change in America. Our group, Democracy for America, is committed to exposing the ways in which the Bush administration's policies are designed to prop up the privileged and please right-wing ideologues. Our agenda is rooted in hope and real American values — opportunity, integrity, honesty. This is the way to defeat George Bush.

Ralph Nader once said that your best teacher is your last mistake. Too many of us learned the consequences of not standing together four years ago. This November, we can elect a president who fights for average Americans. But we can achieve this goal only if we join together — and don't repeat our last mistake.

Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, ended his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in February.

strandinthewind

04-12-2004, 10:11 PM

ITA - I cannot believe anyone in their right mind would vote for Nader in this election when getting rid of W is so important to probably anyone who would vote for Nader :shrug:

P.S. Carne - you are not included in my phrase "right mind" ;) :wavey: :o

strandinthewind

04-12-2004, 10:13 PM

BTW - Dean is forming a PAC - I got a donation req. letter today :rolleyes:

dissention

04-12-2004, 10:26 PM

Anyone hear Randi Rhodes' fight with Nader on the air? Wow. It blew my mind. Want the link so you can download it? It's 12 minutes, but only 2MB, so it's a very quick download. :) He ended up hanging up on her. :laugh:

strandinthewind

04-12-2004, 10:51 PM

dissention

04-12-2004, 11:01 PM

I AM MAD AT YOU ---- DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME YYYOOOUUUUU

Classic :laugh:

"WE CAN'T AFFORD YOU? DO YOU UNDERSTAND: WE CAN'T AFFORD YOU RIGHT NOW!!!!!! GET OVER IT! WHAT WOULD YOU DO AS PRESIDENT?! NOTHING!!!!!!!!"

:thumbsup:

dissention

04-12-2004, 11:04 PM

Want the link to the MP3 of "She Still Looks Reptilian To Me"? :laugh:

golddustwoman77

04-13-2004, 09:03 AM

I'm going to have to agree with the article. Never in history has a third party won the election. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen, but Nadar isn't the guy who is going to do it. He has already ran before, and he didn't make the showing that makes me think that he can pull it off. If people want Bush out of the White House, everyone who isn't voting for Bush, better be voting for Kerry. That is the only hope there is. I hope people can see that. Too bad Nadar didn't just keep his butt out of this race. :shrug: I'm afraid it will be the downfall of this campaign year for the Democrats. :( Kerry needs that 5% to 8% of the vote!

gldstwmn

04-13-2004, 11:21 AM

dissention

04-13-2004, 11:23 AM

I missed that one. Wasn't it her first show with Air America?

Yup. :lol:

He was her first guest and when he got ont he phone, they started talkign about his reasons for running. He got very defensive, so she just told him flatly "We can't afford you right now." He got pissed and they screamed back and forth for ten minutes; eventually he hung up on her.

Gimme a second and I'll get you the link. :wavey:

dissention

04-13-2004, 11:25 AM

Here's the direct link to the file:

http://www.yeatspub.com/rrs/interviews/rrs_20040331_nader.mp3

You can get her show archives from:

http://www.randirhodesarchives.com/ (GREAT site!)

Enjoy! :thumbsup:

chiliD

04-13-2004, 11:29 AM

dissention

04-13-2004, 11:33 AM

If Nader would've run in, oh, let's say 1972 or 1976, he might've had a chance. But, now? He'll only get the Evil Empire back in office for another four years. I wonder where on this planet would be a safe haven if Dubya gets a second term. "The End Of Days" seems to be upon us.

Exactly. :wavey: He's past his expiration date, people.

Here's a summary of his Rhodes appearance:

Things turned ugly on the new liberal talk radio network, "Air America," Wednesday night, with guest Ralph Nader blasting the Democratic Party's counterweight to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly as "Hot Air America."

The perennial candidate said the fact that Democrats couldn't hang onto what he described as their presidential victory was the party's own fault.
And for good measure, Nader blasted ex-President Clinton as a "draft-dodger."
It was all downhill from there, as Nader and Rhodes screamed at one another for the next 10 minutes.

Some selected highlights, as transcribed by the Web site "The Daily Kos":

On Clinton

RHODES: You know the Democrats' policy, you know when the Republicans talk about regime change was the Clinton administration's policy, but it was regime change from within. It was never military action on our part on Iraq. That was not the policy ...
NADER: ... You know, Clinton was a draft-dodger so he wasn't willing to take on the Pentagon. And he wasn't willing to take on the Congress on many huge military expenditures and that starved many of the necessities back home among the American people. ...

On Nader's Presidential Run

RHODES: How many ways to Sunday do I have to tell you? We can't afford you.
NADER: I'm sorry, can you afford freedom? Can you afford choice? Can you afford civil liberties?
RHODES: Gimmie a Democrat President!

On "Hot Air America"

NADER: ... can you – is this the way you want to start Air America? You want it to be Hot Air America?
RHODES: Oh, no, you see ...
NADER: ... Log on to the web site votenader.org ...
RHODES: Ralph, let me tell you something. If you did get to be president, tell me who you would caucus with. Tell me who you could get to vote for your ... views and visions, and your, your bills! Who is an independent other than Bernie Sanders and Jim Jeffords? Who are you gonna count on? You ... let's say you win, OK?
NADER: You can't win without a huge mobilization of voters ...
RHODES: ... let's say ya do ...
NADER: ... that would replace many members of Congress.
RHODES: ... let's say it's seventy years old, from your house in Connecticut, your little house ...
NADER: ... now wait a minute. Now wait wait wait. You're ...
RHODES: ... you are, you are ready to do this.
NADER: ... listen, listen. Now you're getting nasty you...
RHODES: I'm not!
NADER: You are ruining the first day ...
RHODES: I'm not ruining anything.
NADER: ... the first day of Air America.
RHODES: This is Air America.
NADER: ... you're not letting your, you're not letting your guest be, have a chance to speak. You're ...
RHODES: I asked you a question.
NADER: ... you're not letting your guest have a chance to speak.

More bickering

NADER: ... you've got a very bad interviewing technique ...
RHODES: ... uh uh uh. I am not ...
NADER: ... and you're not going to get an audience by overtalking ...
RHODES: ... interviewing you ...
NADER: Do not overtalk!
RHODES: I am not ... interviewing you!
NADER: Do not overtalk!
RHODES: I'm mad at you! Don't you understand the difference?
NADER: Fine, just close up and start screaming to your audience.
RHODES: [laughs] Look. Don't tell me how to do radio; I've done it for twenty years. You screwed up the last election, and now you want to screw up this one, and I'm pissed!
NADER: (pause; speechless) You know, you ought to be ashamed of yourself because you ...
RHODES: But I'm not! You know you should ...
NADER: ... you agree with me ...
RHODES: ... be ashamed of yourself!
NADER: ...you agree with me on so many issues. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself

:lol: :lol: :lol:

dissention

04-13-2004, 11:34 AM

I'm still trying to find the file of Oliver North's appearance on her show where he stormed out of the studio in the middle othe show. ;)

Merf

04-13-2004, 11:49 AM

This country will never embrace a third party for President. NEVER. I'm sorry, but if you vote for Nader, you are not only wasting your vote, you are putting a vote in Bush's column. That is my opinion and I know it will piss off a lot of the independents here, but it's still THE TRUTH. If Nader wants to make a difference in this country, he will bow out of the election. Plain and simple. We cannot afford to give ANY votes to Bush, because this election is going to be as close or closer than the one in 2000. And we know we don't need another president elected by ELECTORAL VOTES ONLY.

Sorry to rant, but Nader is just really pissing me off right now. :mad:

I still can't believe that Nader is in a position to hand the election to a man whose lies have cost thousands their lives. On Easter Sunday, Bush laughed off the past week's violence and kidnappings as "a bad week." My respect for Bush is now at an all time low. We must get him out of that position of power by any means necessary. And NADER DOES NOTHING TO HELP THIS CAUSE!

dissention

04-13-2004, 11:51 AM

This country will never embrace a third party for President. NEVER. I'm sorry, but if you vote for Nader, you are not only wasting your vote, you are putting a vote in Bush's column. That is my opinion and I know it will piss off a lot of the independents here, but it's still THE TRUTH. If Nader wants to make a difference in this country, he will bow out of the election. Plain and simple. We cannot afford to give ANY votes to Bush, because this election is going to be as close or closer than the one in 2000. And we know we don't need another president elected by ELECTORAL VOTES ONLY.

Sorry to rant, but Nader is just really pissing me off right now. :mad:

:thumbsup:

It's just like Rhodes said: if you want to make a difference, do what you've been doing for 40 years. If that's not enough, lobby the new blood for a cabinet position.

CarneVaca

04-13-2004, 02:39 PM

This country will never embrace a third party for President. NEVER. I'm sorry, but if you vote for Nader, you are not only wasting your vote, you are putting a vote in Bush's column. That is my opinion and I know it will piss off a lot of the independents here, but it's still THE TRUTH

The truth!? Funny how I don't remember hearing the rubber-spine Democrats complaining about Perot's two candidacies. A vote for Perot was a vote for whom? I would say Perot, but I'm just fair like that.

This nation survived the Revolutionary War, slavery, the Civil War, two world wars, the Great Depression, the turmoil of the 60s, Vietnam, the Cold War and Ronald Reagan.

Have you who were taught to look at voting in such a narrow way so little faith in the endurance of the greatest democratic experiment on earth that you think four more years of Bush will undo this nation?

Me, I think four more years of Bush may just be what we need to wake up the people in this country from their crippling and chronic political narcolepsy.

dissention

04-13-2004, 02:48 PM

Me, I think four more years of Bush may just be what we need to wake up the people in this country from their crippling and chronic political narcolepsy.

You honestly think this country would wake up after four more Bush years? Gimme a break. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Vote for who you want, man, but keep in mind that when you cast that vote for Nader, you're giving more ammunition to Bush. You'll be giving him your permission to poison your air, kill your fellow citizens, preach his religious hatred, write his beliefs into our constitution, and so on.

That's more narrow-minded than someone using their brain and voting to get the f*cker out.

CarneVaca

04-13-2004, 03:01 PM

Vote for who you want, man, but keep in mind that when you cast that vote for Nader, you're giving more ammunition to Bush. You'll be giving him your permission to poison your air, kill your fellow citizens, preach his religious hatred, write his beliefs into our constitution, and so on.

I'm not voting for Bush. I'm not voting for anyone who had a hand in the killings of thousands in Iraq. You know, like your candidate.

I don't need to rationalize my vote.

gldstwmn

04-13-2004, 03:57 PM

Yup. :lol:

He was her first guest and when he got ont he phone, they started talkign about his reasons for running. He got very defensive, so she just told him flatly "We can't afford you right now." He got pissed and they screamed back and forth for ten minutes; eventually he hung up on her.

Gimme a second and I'll get you the link. :wavey:

That was great listening. Thanks! :wavey:

gldstwmn

04-13-2004, 04:03 PM

Have you who were taught to look at voting in such a narrow way so little faith in the endurance of the greatest democratic experiment on earth that you think four more years of Bush will undo this nation?

Yes. Rome is burning.

gldstwmn

04-13-2004, 04:05 PM

I'm not voting for Bush. I'm not voting for anyone who had a hand in the killings of thousands in Iraq. You know, like your candidate.

I don't need to rationalize my vote.

Not being able to vote makes him innocent by default. Who knows what he would have done?

dissention

04-13-2004, 04:25 PM

I don't need to rationalize my vote.

Then don't.

But don't masquerade your vote under the banner of "doing the right thing" and expect others to accept is as anything but a vote for Bush.

CarneVaca

04-13-2004, 07:41 PM

Then don't.

But don't masquerade your vote under the banner of "doing the right thing" and expect others to accept is as anything but a vote for Bush.

If that's the case, then you voted for Bush last time, didn't you?

dissention

04-13-2004, 08:49 PM

If that's the case, then you voted for Bush last time, didn't you?

Yup, and I won't deny it. I voted for Nader (Bush) in '00.

However, I didn't think for a minute that Bush would actually get in the White House, even when looking at the poll numbers that showed him ahead of Gore. It didn't even come into my mind. Naive, yes. But, Bush did not win the '00 election (or rather selection). It was decided by "activist judges" in Florida.

But to vote for Nader now? There are many words to describe it, but stupid would be the best one.

CarneVaca

04-14-2004, 08:11 AM

Dulcimer

04-14-2004, 08:20 AM

Yup, and I won't deny it. I voted for Nader (Bush) in '00.

However, I didn't think for a minute that Bush would actually get in the White House, even when looking at the poll numbers that showed him ahead of Gore. It didn't even come into my mind. Naive, yes. But, Bush did not win the '00 election (or rather selection). It was decided by "activist judges" in Florida.

But to vote for Nader now? There are many words to describe it, but stupid would be the best one.

You really have anger issues, don't you? I would respectfully suggest you get some help for that. Just because someone disagrees, it doesn't make them stupid. I don't post much, but I check these boards everyday. You seem to have no respect for anyone. As soon as somebody disagrees with you, you react in a very rude way.

dissention

04-14-2004, 09:06 AM

I'm sure you know all about stupid.

Of course I do, I voted for him in 2000. :laugh:

I'm not even trying to deny it, Carne. What would the point be? No one is right 100% of the time and I had a lapse of judgement in 2000. But it won't happen this time, that's for sure.

dissention

04-14-2004, 09:13 AM

You really have anger issues, don't you? I would respectfully suggest you get some help for that. Just because someone disagrees, it doesn't make them stupid. I don't post much, but I check these boards everyday. You seem to have no respect for anyone. As soon as somebody disagrees with you, you react in a very rude way.

I never called anyone stupid, pal. I said that it would be a stupid act to vote for Nader, there's a difference. ;)

Whether or not you like my approach when we talk politics, it is what it is. The only anger issue I have is with the current administration. I can guarantee you that when Shrub's fired in November, my attitude will improve by leaps and bounds. :laugh:

strandinthewind

04-14-2004, 09:18 AM

But, Bush did not win the '00 election (or rather selection). It was decided by "activist judges" in Florida.

Is that why every independent recount by every news source in FL indicated W won there :cool:

Carne, I get your point, but was thinking (here is where everyone goes :rolleyes: :laugh: ) if you think four more years of W is what is needed to teach America a lesson, awaken it, etc., at what cost is this lesson? More lives lost, more suffering, etc., which history has suggested will surely happen under W in a far worse manner than under Kerry. I submit the same for civil rights deterioration under W as opposed to Kerry and the legislation will take years to undo. Then there are the USSC nominees W will appoint who will be there for 25 or so years. That is too high of a price for me to assert onto America as a learning tool.

Moreover, Nader has no hope of winning and even if he did, could he really stop the progress in Iraq or prevent what everyone pretty much knows is coming in North Korea and Iran? I say Nader or anyone else could not. That and other reasons are why I am voting for Kerry. I think Kerry will at least try more to involve the UN, etc.

But, it is your vote and I respect that. I merely state my reasons, etc. :cool:

dissention

04-14-2004, 09:51 AM

Carne-

I know you're going to vote for Nader, but why not Kucinich? He's still campaigning as far as I know. I'm being serious; what is the difference between them? Kucinich is really the only true liberal in the race (along with Sharpton). If Kucinich was actually elected, he'd have a better shot at getting things enacted; Nader would get stonewalled at every opportunity.

And I do apologize for my previous comment; re-reading it made me realize how rude it came off. :xoxo:

CarneVaca

04-14-2004, 10:25 AM

Is that why every independent recount by every news source in FL indicated W won there :cool:

Carne, I get your point, but was thinking (here is where everyone goes :rolleyes: :laugh: ) if you think four more years of W is what is needed to teach America a lesson, awaken it, etc., at what cost is this lesson? More lives lost, more suffering, etc., which history has suggested will surely happen under W in a far worse manner than under Kerry. I submit the same for civil rights deterioration under W as opposed to Kerry and the legislation will take years to undo.

OK, let's see if I can address this without sending everyone into a whirlwind of indignation. See, in my view, the last several generations of Americans simply haven't suffered enough. There's too much greed and too much self-centeredness. And the people running things now are from generations that didn't really suffer the way folks who lived through the Depression did. They've forgotten, or simply don't have a point of reference for, the need to be a community and help one another. Compare what we're going through in this country with the plight of people in the former Yugoslavia or the dismal conditions in a lot of African nations or the desperation in rural outposts of China. That's real suffering. Those folks really have something to complain about.

Here, we're just pissed because we're not making as much money as we were five years ago and our benefits have been cut. And we're pissed because our government is blatantly and arroganly selling itself out to corporations and starting unprovoked wars. I'm pissed too, believe me. But while I think the current cadre of fascist Republicans running things is particularly dangerous, I don't see them as being terribly different from previous administrations. These guys are just far more blatant about it. But you don't think the environmental regulations were already being scaled back during the Clinton years? Or the anti-trust laws? By the way, when did most of the corporate malfeasance that's gotten so much press take place? And wasn't Clinton launching missile attacks into Iraq and bombing pharmaceutical factories in the Sudan? What makes his war crimes so different from Bush's?

So what got us here? While there is poverty in America, way more than should be acceptable, too many people are doing well enough. People are thinking about buying their next car or making plans for summer concerts to attend. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But as a nation, we're not in survival mode, and anyone who wants me to believe that if we don't get Bush out of office in November we're doomed, well, I think whoever says that is buying into the alarmism that makes us live in constant fear. Because, frankly, we have been in a gradual decline for years and will continue sliding regardless of whether Kerry or Bush gets into the White House in November. Did Al Gore even address poverty in 2000? No, Nader did. He pointed out that 20 percent of the children in this country live below the poverty line, and this after the greatest economic boom we've ever seen. It's unconscionable and we all should be ashamed of if. Instead, too many people want to play politics and point fingers. And the masses get fed this drivel and start taking sides based on it. But deep down they know something is rotten, so they hold their noses and vote for what they perceive as the lesser of two evils.

But I don't buy it. We need fundamental change, not the bandaids the Democrats insist on forcing down our throats every four years. More than half of the people in this country don't vote. And that's just how the Republicans and Democrats want it. If a popular movement takes hold in this country and picks up steam, both parties are screwed and they know it. That's why they go out of their way to squash any vestige of a such a movement. Even when it comes from within their ranks. Look at the John McCain and Howard Dean examples. Then these guys are cowed into mostly towing the party line.

Are the Democrats really that much better? Please! Witness the chicken-**** attitude of the Democrats toward the war and their lack of support for the anti-war crowd last year. They know they are just as much an integral part of the corruption and decay in this country as the Republicans. They're just not as blatant about it. For instance, I thought it was hilarious when Trent Lott got caught in his racist attitudes because I would bet you not less than half the Democrats have similar attitudes. A lot of people talk a good game about diversity, but in practice they are just as prejudiced as anybody. I see it daily.

Do you really think that if John Kerry gets into office we are going to solve the Iraq problem that much more quickly or better? Here's a guy who has gone out of his way to support the war while talking out of both sides of his mouth about it. And guess what? Recruitment is down. So you know what that means: The draft is coming regardless of who is president. More carnage, more corruption, more fear. And it won't matter if there is a Democrat or Republican in the White House.

You can call me whatever you want for how I decide to cast my vote. I don't care. I'm not like other people; I do what I want to. I vote for what I believe in, rather than making excuses for supporting the lesser of two evils. No fundamental social change ever comes from trying to fix the system from within. Never. Ultimately the system has to accept it or be thrown out, which is what we've seen with things like the anti-Vietnam and Civil Rights movements, or even the union movement of the 20s and 30s.

So people go into the polling booth in November and place a strategic vote, then sit back and expect everything to fall miraculously into place if your guy is elected. I'm here to tell you it ain't going to happen that way.

Moreover, Nader has no hope of winning and even if he did, could he really stop the progress in Iraq or prevent what everyone pretty much knows is coming in North Korea and Iran? I say Nader or anyone else could not.

You're right, he isn't going to win. And really, Kerry already has my state locked up unless he really screws up. But could Nader stop "the progress in Iraq?" I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you see progress being made right now?

CarneVaca

04-14-2004, 10:27 AM

chiliD

04-14-2004, 10:30 AM

But you don't think the environmental regulations were already being scaled back during the Clinton years?

No, I don't...my mom is EXTREMELY active in environmental causes and they actually made significant GAINS during the Clinton administration that the "Evil Empire" has recinded.

But as a nation, we're not in survival mode, and anyone who wants me to believe that if we don't get Bush out of office in November we're doomed, well, I think whoever says that is full of ****.

Ok, cue me where I tell you to f**k off...is that now?

Damn, I hate getting into political discussions...it brings out the worst in me.

CarneVaca

04-14-2004, 10:36 AM

No, I don't...my mom is EXTREMELY active in environmental causes and they actually made significant GAINS during the Clinton administration that the "Evil Empire" has recinded.

Is this the same Clinton administration that was allowing the blowing up of mountain tops in West Virginia and Ohio, causing all kinds of health problems for poeple living nearby?

Ok, cue me where I tell you to f**k off...is that now?

That's up to you. I changed that part right after I posted it though. I'd gotten a little carried away. But whatever you or anyone wants to believe, four more years of Bush is not going to kill this country.

strandinthewind

04-14-2004, 10:43 AM

But could Nader stop "the progress in Iraq?" I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you see progress being made right now?

You do not think any progress has been made in Iraq? I think at least some has, even though I realize the people of Iraq had t go through SH's hell and then the war to get there. But, the situation is progressing, in that something like 80% of the huge country is peaceful and the US has worked hard to rebuild not only what was destroyed in the war, but also what was destroyed by years of neglect and outright destruction under SH. This is sort of where I pull my hair out in that people always harp on the bad and never even seem willing to acknowledge the good. They are seemingly so poisened by their hate (note I am talking about people in general and not you). In the end, I am unhappy about how we got to Iraq and I think W should be impeached for the outright lying he tild to sell this war. I am just saying we are there, so we have to make the best of it and stay there until the end, whenever that is. To leave now IMO would be a worse humanitarian crime than attacking Iraq in the first place.

Also, I get your point about America needing to awaken from the status quo. I just think four more years of W will not teach that lesson. Its just my opinion - no slam intended :cool:

chiliD

04-14-2004, 10:52 AM

That's up to you. I changed that part right after I posted it though. I'd gotten a little carried away. But whatever you or anyone wants to believe, four more years of Bush is not going to kill this country.

We're not going to agree on your last sentence EVER. And, I'm so passionately anti-Bush/Republican, it'll cause problems. So, I call "truce" for the sake of peace on the Ledge.

CarneVaca

04-14-2004, 10:53 AM

Ill add to the environmental thing because this is one of the issues that when I mention it, people think I'm crazy. But Clinton's record speaks for itself.

It would be unfair to say Clinton’s and Bush’s environmental records are on par. And I didn’t say that. I said environmental regulations, or plans for new regulations, were scaled back. A lot of concessions were made to Detroit for instance. Where are those 40MPH cars?

Further, Clinton’s record on local air-quality control standards and global greenhouse emissions was dismal. Clinton said that climate change was a global strategic threat that required bold leadership and, in his first Earth Day address, promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. When Clinton left office, however, emissions were 15 percent above 1990 levels.

Clinton pushed for NAFTA, a pact roundly criticized for lowering environmental standards in the name of free trade. There's so much wrapped up in this one little topic that I couldn't possibly do it justice here. Suffice it to say that NAFTA, and other pacts like it, will hurt us for a long time to come. A long time. The unions were right about this one.

Clinton reversed a 17-year ban on importing PCBs, solely to benefit the overbuilt U.S. incineration industry to the tune of $50 to $150 million a year. I lived next to a PCB site for a good chunk of my life. This matters to me.

Were some regulations improved? Yes. But a lot more that needed to be done was ignored.

CarneVaca

04-14-2004, 10:55 AM

We're not going to agree on your last sentence EVER. And, I'm so passionately anti-Bush/Republican, it'll cause problems. So, I call "truce" for the sake of peace on the Ledge.

Fair enough. I bet you I'm not less anti-Bush or Republican than you, though. I just have a different perspective on what the effect of four more years of this will be.

gldstwmn

04-14-2004, 11:02 AM

OK, let's see if I can address this without sending everyone into a whirlwind of indignation. See, in my view, the last several generations of Americans simply haven't suffered enough.

Horse****. You sound like a lot of Catholics I know who think that this life is all about suffering. Guess what? IT'S NOT. I happen to think it is, however, about taking the high road. That's a pretty sweeping generalization you've made. My father died when I was eight years old. Who are you to gauge the way I have suffered in my life?

CarneVaca

04-14-2004, 11:06 AM

You do not think any progress has been made in Iraq

No. There are more people without electricity now. There are more out-of-work shopowners now. More broken families. There are more people with guns (for instance, 5,000 of Saddam's troops were allowed to keep their guns when they were fired).

Paul Bremer doesn't know who is going to take over on July 1. Do you honestly believe this is progress?

Do you really see anything but the continued deterioration of this situation? Can honestly tell me John Kerry has a good plan to fix this? What is it?

CarneVaca

04-14-2004, 11:11 AM

Horse****. You sound like a lot of Catholics I know who think that this life is all about suffering. Guess what? IT'S NOT. I happen to think it is, however, about taking the high road. That's a pretty sweeping generalization you've made. My father died when I was eight years old. Who are you to gauge the way I have suffered in my life?

I don't remember presuming to gauge how much you've suffered, or anything in your life, for that matter. I don't know enough about you.

I don't believe life is about suffering. I'm not a Buddhist or a Catholic.

I think perhaps you missed my point, which is that as a nation, we have overall fared pretty well compared to other peoples around the world (can you really dispute that?) and that as a result, our more recent generations -- those that haven't seen desperate poverty and social upheaval the way previous generations did or people in other countries do -- lack a point of reference that is necessary to instill in them the need to live as a community with people helping one another. Unfortunately those generations are running things now.

gldstwmn

04-14-2004, 11:11 AM

Can honestly tell me John Kerry has a good plan to fix this? What is it?

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/index.html

"We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers. The events of the past week will make foreign governments extremely reluctant to put their citizens at risk. That is why international acceptance of responsibility for stabilizing Iraq must be matched by international authority for managing the remainder of the Iraqi transition. The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people. The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.

Finally, we must level with our citizens. Increasingly, the American people are confused about our goals in Iraq, particularly why we are going it almost alone. The president must rally the country around a clear and credible goal. The challenges are significant and the costs are high. But the stakes are too great to lose the support of the American people."

gldstwmn

04-14-2004, 11:19 AM

I don't remember presuming to gauge how much you've suffered, or anything in your life, for that matter. I don't know enough about you.

I don't believe life is about suffering. I'm not a Buddhist or a Catholic.

I think perhaps you missed my point, which is that as a nation, we have overall fared pretty well compared to other peoples around the world (can you really dispute that?) and that as a result, our more recent generations -- those that haven't seen desperate poverty and social upheaval the way previous generations did or people in other countries do -- lack a point of reference that is necessary to instill in them the need to live as a community with people helping one another. Unfortunately those generations are running things now.

No, you've missed my point. You flatly stated that Americans haven't suffered enough. I had no control over where I was born in this world. Neither does anyone else. I am thankful every single day for being born here. Kerry advocates a community service program for all of our youth, by the way. Anyone old enough to remember the late 60's and early 70's knows about social upheaval. Anyone old enough to remember Reagan knows about poverty and plague. So no, your argument doesn't hold water with me. By voting for Nadir, you're continuing the very theocracy that you rail against.

strandinthewind

04-14-2004, 11:20 AM

No. There are more people without electricity now. There are more out-of-work shopowners now. More broken families. There are more people with guns (for instance, 5,000 of Saddam's troops were allowed to keep their guns when they were fired).

Paul Bremer doesn't know who is going to take over on July 1. Do you honestly believe this is progress?

Do you really see anything but the continued deterioration of this situation? Can honestly tell me John Kerry has a good plan to fix this? What is it?

I just cannot believe that people apparently think nothing has been done? The reports as reported in all of the credible press just do no support that. So, yes, the situation is not perfect, but clearly it is getting better. But, people just refuse to acknowledge that and I am at a loss to see why. I mean facts are facts and it does not mean a person is supporting the war in Iraq by admitting progress has been made :shrug:

Also, Nader to my knowledge has set forth no specific plan to fix this either. At least Kerry would go running to the UN and "beg" for help
:laugh:

CarneVaca

04-14-2004, 11:24 AM

CarneVaca

04-14-2004, 11:27 AM

I just cannot believe that people apparently think nothing has been done?

Jason, that's not how you framed the question. Here is what you said:

You do not think any progress has been made in Iraq?

I answered no, and I stand by that. Having a dictator who was no threat to us in place seems to me was a better option, considering the outcome of this misadventure.

strandinthewind

04-14-2004, 11:27 AM

Jason, that's not how you framed the question. Here is what you said:

I answered no, and I stand by that. Having a dictator who was no threat to us in place seems to me was a better option, considering the outcome of this misadventure.

Touche my friend touche' :laugh:

dissention

04-14-2004, 11:34 AM

I just cannot believe that people apparently think nothing has been done? The reports as reported in all of the credible press just do no support that. So, yes, the situation is not perfect, but clearly it is getting better. But, people just refuse to acknowledge that and I am at a loss to see why. I mean facts are facts and it does not mean a person is supporting the war in Iraq by admitting progress has been made :shrug:

Also, Nader to my knowledge has set forth no specific plan to fix this either. At least Kerry would go running to the UN and "beg" for help
:laugh:

Nothing has been done, that's why. They found Saddam in a dugout, whoop-di-doo. But what has been done for the people without heat, electricity, food, firewood? Nothing. And, I hate to harp on this, but they even steamroll over the cars of the Iraqi people if they think they're stepping out of line. They're bombing civilian mosque's full of babies and women, they're poisoning the people with depleted uranium. I don't give a **** how many schools you build, it doesn't compensate for their misery.

And what credible press do you speak of? Faux News? NBC, or rather, GE? CBS? None of those places are credible. CNN isn't credible either, becasue they're beginning to whitewash their stories beoynd belief. PBS and NPR are the only credible sources I know of.

gldstwmn

04-14-2004, 11:36 AM

Am I really such a danger to you because I don't conform to your thinking?

No, you don't frighten me at all. :)

Dulcimer

04-14-2004, 11:37 AM

No, you've missed my point. You flatly stated that Americans haven't suffered enough. I had no control over where I was born in this world. Neither does anyone else. I am thankful every single day for being born here. Kerry advocates a community service program for all of our youth, by the way. Anyone old enough to remember the late 60's and early 70's knows about social upheaval. Anyone old enough to remember Reagan knows about poverty and plague. So no, your argument doesn't hold water with me. By voting for Nadir, you're continuing the very theocracy that you rail against.

I don't think you did get his point at all. CV isn't telling anybody they should be ashamed for having being born in this country. I think he said we should be ashamed for allowing people to live in extreme poverty in this country, if I understood him right. He is also saying, I think, that Democrats and Republicans alike don't have a very good record of addressing issues like poverty. Howard Dean was the first to bring it up during the primaries, and then the other candidates started to pay lip service to the topic of poverty, but I dn't think they really wanted to deal with it really.

Why are you taking offense about your individual situation because somebody is posting what appears to me to be nothing more than a sociological theory on the ongoing state of our nation? It's a theory and you can agree with CV or disagree. I really don't think it's necsseary to take offense at this stuff. He's someone who holds very definite views on how things should be and because they are somewhat different in terms of how to achieve a certain end from the way you think it should be, you act like the guy is the devil or something.

I don't agree with everything CV says, on really most topics I've seen him participate in, but I do find his commentary always interesting and thought-provoking. I'm not voting for Bush, but I haven't decided that Kerry is our best choice either. No matter what, I would never take such a dismissive, disrespectful attitude toward a person who believes there is a third or fourth way.

dissention

04-14-2004, 11:38 AM

Good point about Kucinich. But I don't believe in voting for one of the two parties. They are too corrupt.

I accept the apology. Though, there's no need for it. I can take it.
:wavey:

Good. :D

Back to Kucinich vs. Nader. :laugh:

I don't believe that Kucinich is corrupt and I don't believe he could ever be corrupted. To me, he's a man of principle with a helluva lot of heart. We haven't seen a politician like that in ages (with the exception of Braun) and I would hope to see him become a more prominent figure in our government. He's a great man.

gldstwmn

04-14-2004, 11:39 AM

I don't think you did get his point at all. .

Thank you for your eloquent post but I think, no I am certain that Carne is quite capable of supporting his own point. :)

strandinthewind

04-14-2004, 11:39 AM

Nothing has been done, that's why. They found Saddam in a dugout, whoop-di-doo. But what has been done for the people without heat, electricity, food, firewood? Nothing. And, I hate to harp on this, but they even steamroll over the cars of the Iraqi people if they think they're stepping out of line. They're bombing civilian mosque's full of babies and women, they're poisoning the people with depleted uranium. I don't give a **** how many schools you build, it doesn't compensate for their misery.

And what credible press do you speak of? Faux News? NBC, or rather, GE? CBS? None of those places are credible. CNN isn't credible either, becasue they're beginning to whitewash their stories beoynd belief. PBS and NPR are the only credible sources I know of.
So not one power line has been restored. Not one phone line reconnected. Not on school built. I think you know better than that :laugh:

gldstwmn

04-14-2004, 11:42 AM

[QUOTE=Dulcimer]. He is also saying, I think, that Democrats and Republicans alike don't have a very good record of addressing issues like poverty. Howard Dean was the first to bring it up during the primaries, and then the other candidates started to pay lip service to the topic of poverty, but I dn't think they really wanted to deal with it really.

QUOTE]

Respectfully, bull****. Ted Kennedy for one, has done more for the working class or people living in poverty than anyone I can think of recently. By the way, what's the average income of a person living in Saint Howard Dean's Vermont? Howard doesn't know from poverty.

dissention

04-14-2004, 11:44 AM

So not one power line has been restored. Not one phone line reconnected. Not on school built. I think you know better than that :laugh:

You missed my point. ;) (And how could I know better than that, I'm a raging liberal!! :laugh: )

I said that I don't care how many schools are built or how many phone lines are restored, it cannot compensate for the misery of the Iraqi people. It just can't. If you believe that those people are better off because they now have telephone service with free nights and weekends, I really don't understand you. Yeah, they built a few schools, but they've also killed hundreds of young children who could be in those schools right now. I think it's ridiculous to even think that their lives are better right now, especially with the way things are going there these days.

dissention

04-14-2004, 11:46 AM

Respectfully, bull****. Ted Kennedy for one, has done more for the working class or people living in poverty than anyone I can think of recently. By the way, what's the average income of a person living in Saint Howard Dean's Vermont? Howard doesn't know from poverty.

:nod:

And I think some of you are confusing Dean with Edwards; Edwards is the one who first brought up the issue of poverty and then everyone jumped on the bandwagon.

CarneVaca

04-14-2004, 11:50 AM

Geezus... you know when I saw this thread yesterday, my first impulse was to skip it.

I know I'm not going to convert anyone to my point of view. But I think it's worthy of a little more than just dismissing it. Though I can't control that.

I would be the last person to minimize anybody's life travails. And I sure as hell don't think we're on this planet for the express purpose of suffering. Hell, I have too much fun and I like fun too much to believe that.

But my political views have been shaped from living in two countries that have very different approaches to politics. I think the two-party system is rotten and it needs to be thrown out. Too many people think it's never going to happen. They may be right, but I believe it can happen.

As for Kucinich, Dissention, I like the man. I like him a lot. But isn't the Kucinich discussion over? The primaries are over. So what's the point? Are the Democrats going to send two nominees to the general election? It's moot really.

gldstwmn

04-14-2004, 11:53 AM

Why are you taking offense about your individual situation because somebody is posting what appears to me to be nothing more than a sociological theory on the ongoing state of our nation?
Because I, as a citizen of this nation, I am offering a viewoint on the state of it in the most personal way possible.
It's a theory and you can agree with CV or disagree. I really don't think it's necsseary to take offense at this stuff. He's someone who holds very definite views on how things should be and because they are somewhat different in terms of how to achieve a certain end from the way you think it should be, you act like the guy is the devil or something.
I don't think Carne is the devil at all. I like Carne. I think he knows that. We frequently debate like this on these threads.

I don't agree with everything CV says, on really most topics I've seen him participate in, but I do find his commentary always interesting and thought-provoking. I'm not voting for Bush, but I haven't decided that Kerry is our best choice either. No matter what, I would never take such a dismissive, disrespectful attitude toward a person who believes there is a third or fourth way.
I am open to the third or fourth way. But this time, I'm afraid, there is only one way to do this. The consequences are dire. These people are dangerous.

dissention

04-14-2004, 11:53 AM

As for Kucinich, Dissention, I like the man. I like him a lot. But isn't the Kucinich discussion over? The primaries are over. So what's the point? Are the Democrats going to send two nominees to the general election? It's moot really.

Touche. :laugh:

strandinthewind

04-14-2004, 11:55 AM

You missed my point. ;) (And how could I know better than that, I'm a raging liberal!! :laugh: )

I said that I don't care how many schools are built or how many phone lines are restored, it cannot compensate for the misery of the Iraqi people. It just can't. If you believe that those people are better off because they now have telephone service with free nights and weekends, I really don't understand you. Yeah, they built a few schools, but they've also killed hundreds of young children who could be in those schools right now. I think it's ridiculous to even think that their lives are better right now, especially with the way things are going there these days.

NOW you talking :laugh:

I think in the end we should not have gone to Iraq at least without the bribe taking UN. But, for 11 years, the world through the UN bought all of that intelligence about WMD and SH did not lift a finger to defend himself. Instead, he stalled, hindered, hid things, etc. - after all it was SH's duty to prove he destroyed the WMD that remained from the last time he used them (I mean please). So, I see the argument (outside of the lying) for goining into Iraq in a post-9/11 world even though I do not agree with the horrible and IMO impeachable way W went about getting it :shrug:

As for Iraq now, we are there. That is reality. We have to deal with that. We are dealing with that I think in a progressive way and things are getting better there. Hopefully, the progress will continue and Iraq will be better. :D

gldstwmn

04-14-2004, 11:55 AM

CarneVaca

04-14-2004, 11:56 AM

Let's take the discussion back to Howard Dean and Nader. Ooooff...

It's lunchtime, anyway. I'm outta here.

strandinthewind

04-14-2004, 11:57 AM

the same could be said for Nadir. He was over in 2000. :p

Oooooo touche' to Goldie :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Again, I am all for a third party candidate. But, not in this election :laugh:

dissention

04-14-2004, 11:58 AM

I am open to the third or fourth way.

I think that most of us who are participating in this thread are open to to a third party candidate. I know I am, becasue I voted for Nader four years ago. But, to me, that isn't the issue. The issue is getting rid of Shrub no matter what. Once he's gone, I have no problem ever voting a third party candidate ever again; I welcome another good candidate in the coming years. BUT - the stakes are too high this time.

I know that Carne says that America needs a swift kick in the ass and I certainly agree with him. But what I disagree with is allowing our country to be degraded for even longer than it should be. To be honest, this whole mess in Iraq should be the definintive ass kick, but unfortunately, it isn't. And I'm not willing to risk another Iraq for the sake of awakening those Americans who don't give a ****.

dissention

04-14-2004, 12:00 PM

NOW you talking :laugh:

I know, but you ain't listening. :lol:

strandinthewind

04-15-2004, 10:45 AM

For Carne - I post this!!!! :cool:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/14/kerry.iraq/index.html
________________________________________________________-

Kerry debates anti-war activist in New York
Bush campaign scolds Democrat over stand on Iraq

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry tried to outline a "more thoughtful and more achievable course" in Iraq during an impromptu debate with an anti-war activist Wednesday, but he said the United States cannot leave behind a "failed Iraq."

President Bush's campaign, meanwhile, accused Kerry of playing politics with the war in Iraq, where more than 80 American troops have been killed this month battling Sunni insurgents and Shiite militants.

And a Republican congressman accused Kerry of offering vague criticism of the occupation that only plants "seeds of doubt and confusion."

At a question-and-answer session at City College campus in Harlem, semi-retired math teacher Walter Daum accused Kerry -- a onetime anti-war activist -- of supporting an "imperialist war" in Iraq.

"You say you are a stark difference from George Bush," said the 64-year-old Daum. "People hate George Bush, but by the end of your presidency, they'll hate you for the same thing."

Kerry voted for the congressional resolution that gave Bush the authorization to invade Iraq, but he said Bush "made a terrible mistake to take us to war the way that he did."

"I have consistently been critical of how we got where we are," Kerry responded. "But we are where we are, sir, and it would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its wake."

The Massachusetts senator, and presumptive Democratic nominee for president, said the Bush administration has failed to draw international support that would lend legitimacy to the occupation and a new Iraqi government.

A banner hanging at the campus forum demanded a U.S. withdrawal, but Kerry said that would leave "the potential for civil war."

"The course that I have proposed is to turn over to the United Nations the full responsibility for the transformation of the government and for the reconstruction," he said.

"Because I believe that as long as it is an American occupation, we will have great difficulty in staying any course and achieving the kind of stability we want to achieve."

At news conference after the forum, Kerry said: "We should not only be tough, we have to be smart -- and there's a smarter way to accomplish this mission than this president is pursuing."

Kerry campaigned in the city with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York --their first time on the trail together. They were joined at the City College forum by Rep. Charles Rangel of New York.

Kerry touted a scaled-back version of a national service program that would pay tuition for about 200,000 public college students in exchange for two years of national service and pay part-time fees for 300,000.

Kerry originally proposed paying tuition for 500,000 students, funding the program by reforming the direct student loan program.

But aides said he had to scale back that proposal due to the federal budget deficit, currently projected to run about $480 billion.

The Bush campaign and its Republican allies accused Kerry of trying to exploit the trouble in Iraq for his political benefit.

Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, speaking on behalf of the Bush campaign, said Kerry's argument was "just a lot of criticism and pessimism."

"He is saying that we should hand over power to the United Nations," Weinberger said. "The United Nations is totally incapable of doing any kind of job as pacifying or removing terrorism from a country like Iraq."

Rep. Peter King of New York said Kerry has offered only "sideline criticisms and back-seat driving" as an alternative to Bush's proposals.

"If he is going to criticize the president, he should say what he would do differently and not just make general statements," King said.

"By putting out ambiguous statements like that, he's only sowing seeds of doubt and confusion."

King said Kerry's attacks on Bush were particularly dismissive of those U.S. allies who are contributing troops to the occupation.

"For him to be belittling that really flies in the face of how he's going to bring some allied coalition to assist us in Iraq," King said.

In a press conference Tuesday night, Bush acknowledged that the United States had suffered some "tough weeks" in Iraq, but he said his administration would "finish the work of the fallen."

He said American commanders would have as many troops as they felt necessary to battle the Shiite uprising south of Baghdad and the Sunni insurgents in Fallujah.

gldstwmn

04-15-2004, 10:54 AM

For Carne - I post this!!!! :cool:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/14/kerry.iraq/index.html
________________________________________________________-

Rep. Peter King of New York said Kerry has offered only "sideline criticisms and back-seat driving" as an alternative to Bush's proposals.

"If he is going to criticize the president, he should say what he would do differently and not just make general statements," King said.

"By putting out ambiguous statements like that, he's only sowing seeds of doubt and confusion."

.

Yes, as opposed to the Presidents style of giving clear, concise answers to direct questions, ala his "press conference" the other night. :shocked: (sarcasm off)
All of the questions were provided to him in advance, btw, except for one. That reporter is probably fired by now, or at least sitting with Helen Thomas out in the hallway.

dissention

04-15-2004, 11:19 AM

All of the questions were provided to him in advance, btw, except for one. That reporter is probably fired by now, or at least sitting with Helen Thomas out in the hallway.

Did you hear the sound byte of him and the AP reporter from yesterday?! :shocked:

Bush: Who's the AP guy?

Reporter: I am.

Bush: You are? Ask a question!

Reporter: Yes, sir-

Bush: What?!

Reporter: I mean, Mr. President-

Bush: Yes.

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

Randi played it ad nauseum yesterday because it was so shocking.

CarneVaca

04-15-2004, 11:20 AM

Has the United Nations accepted a role yet for the post-American occupation period?

CarneVaca

04-15-2004, 11:22 AM

Did you hear the sound byte of him and the AP reporter from yesterday?! :shocked:

Bush: Who's the AP guy?

Reporter: I am.

Bush: You are? Ask a question!

Reporter: Yes, sir-

Bush: What?!

Reporter: I mean, Mr. President-

Bush: Yes.

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

Randi played it ad nauseum yesterday because it was so shocking.

The press should grow some and just boycott these dog and pony shows. But then again, the press has no backbone anymore, with few exceptions.

gldstwmn

04-15-2004, 11:45 AM

Did you hear the sound byte of him and the AP reporter from yesterday?! :shocked:

Bush: Who's the AP guy?

Reporter: I am.

Bush: You are? Ask a question!

Reporter: Yes, sir-

Bush: What?! (He said "Who you talkin' to?")

Reporter: I mean, Mr. President-

Bush: Yes.

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

Randi played it ad nauseum yesterday because it was so shocking.

CNN played it right before the press confernece for the national audience. It's unbelievable. Paula Zahn then went on to point out that "Mr. President" works for the American people including the reporter he had just insulted, not the other way around. It was beauty.

dissention

04-15-2004, 12:49 PM

The press should grow some and just boycott these dog and pony shows. But then again, the press has no backbone anymore, with few exceptions.

:nod: :nod: :nod:

Absolutely. I'm sick and tired of seeing these people kiss his ass.

From now on they should address him as Your Assholiness.

dissention

04-15-2004, 12:50 PM

CNN played it right before the press confernece for the national audience. It's unbelievable. Paula Zahn then went on to point out that "Mr. President" works for the American people including the reporter he had just insulted, not the other way around. It was beauty.

The funny thing is that when Clinton was president, he let reporters and whoever else call him Bill. :nod:

strandinthewind

04-15-2004, 12:59 PM

:rolleyes: The correct way to address ANY President of the U.S. is Mr. President. If the reporter did not know this, he had no business in the WH press corps. The reporter, not W, screwed up. :cool:

dissention

04-15-2004, 01:03 PM

:rolleyes: The correct way to address ANY President of the U.S. is Mr. President. If the reporter did not know this, he had no business in the WH press corps. The reporter, not W, screwed up. :cool:

:lol:

Someone decided to call him "Sir" and he bitched that it should be "Mr. President." Not only is it absurd, but it speaks volumes about his ego. To show disgust over someone addressing him as "Sir" is ludicrous. It's not like he called him by his first name or Mr. Bush. That's one difference between him and CLinton: Clinton made you feel at ease and let you address him in whichever way you wanted. Bill, Mr. Clinton, Sir, Mr. President; he didn't give a ****.

strandinthewind

04-15-2004, 01:06 PM

:lol:

Someone decided to call him "Sir" and he bitched that it should be "Mr. President." Not only is it absurd, but it speaks volumes about his ego. To show disgust over someone addressing him as "Sir" is ludicrous. It's not like he called him by his first name or Mr. Bush. That's one difference between him and CLinton: Clinton made you feel at ease and let you address him in whichever way you wanted. Bill, Mr. Clinton, Sir, Mr. President; he didn't give a ****.
How does what Clinton did obviate the decorum set forth in the WH press corps. Moreover, why is it a bad thing for W to insist these rules are followed. Again, the reporter, not W, made the mistake. But, this is another example of NITPICKING :laugh: But, I love ya anyway :cool:

wondergirl9847

04-15-2004, 01:31 PM

I think the two-party system is rotten and it needs to be thrown out.

Are there only two types of people in the US...newp. So, why are there only two choices for President? :confused:

CarneVaca

04-15-2004, 01:33 PM

Are there only two types of people in the US...newp. So, why are there only two choices for President? :confused:

My point exactly.

dissention

04-15-2004, 01:34 PM

How does what Clinton did obviate the decorum set forth in the WH press corps. Moreover, why is it a bad thing for W to insist these rules are followed. Again, the reporter, not W, made the mistake. But, this is another example of NITPICKING :laugh: But, I love ya anyway :cool:

Because Dubya's lack of decorum is what the argument is over. ;)

Did you hear it? It was f*cking rude, ruder than the reporters ommission of the words "Mr. President." To take time out of a press conference to do what Dubya did was awful, IMO. He showed a lack of class. Wow, one reporter called him "Sir." Let's call him out publicly on it and waste everyone's time! Let's embarrass the poor guy!

Gimme a break.

CarneVaca

04-15-2004, 01:35 PM

How does what Clinton did obviate the decorum set forth in the WH press corps. Moreover, why is it a bad thing for W to insist these rules are followed. Again, the reporter, not W, made the mistake. But, this is another example of NITPICKING :laugh: But, I love ya anyway :cool:

Oh, come on, Jason. The Weed had a list of whom to call on. He got to the point in the list that said "AP reporter," so he forces the guy to ask him a question. The guy was not ready to ask a question and fumbled a little. If I'm the president and he calls me "sir," I ignore it and move on. How ludicrous to make an issue of it.

strandinthewind

04-15-2004, 01:40 PM

Oh, come on, Jason. The Weed had a list of whom to call on. He got to the point in the list that said "AP reporter," so he forces the guy to ask him a question. The guy was not ready to ask a question and fumbled a little. If I'm the president and he calls me "sir," I ignore it and move on. How ludicrous to make an issue of it.

I am not arguing that. I am just saying that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Moreover, the Pres. did nothing wrong by insisting the AP reporter address him by the rules. You all are acting as if W horsewhipped him as if he was a slave fieldhand. I find that to be nitpicky and minisule compared to the big issues here. I cannot stand this whole (not that either of you has said this) the press are sacrosanct and everyone else is wrong. That is BS. This AP reporter misaddressed the Pres. and he rightfully got called on it in my book.

dissention

04-15-2004, 01:51 PM

I am just saying that this is making a mountain out of a molehill..

Yup, that's exactly what Shrub did. He made a mountain out of a molehill.

CarneVaca

04-15-2004, 02:54 PM

I am not arguing that. I am just saying that this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Yes, the Weed did that by making an issue out of it. Wouldn't you rather have a president that wasn't hung up on this kind of thing? Besides, ultimately the fault is with the Weed (Dubya fits here too) for calling on a reporter that didn't have a question ready. It's just bullcrap, and you know it.

Press conferences are a waste anyway. When I was a reporter, I made it a point of not asking good questions then (if I'd been on TV it would be different) because I could usually get the person afterward and ask the better questions. This way I wasn't giving my competition a freebee. Of course, I know this isn't possible with the president, but it applies in a lot of situations.

gldstwmn

04-15-2004, 03:55 PM

dissention

04-15-2004, 04:09 PM

You're correct. The reporter called him "sir". Bush's reaction however, showed him to be quite an asshole.

Bush: Who's the AP guy?

Reporter: I am.

Bush: You are? Ask a question!

Reporter: Yes, Your Assholiness.

:lol:

strandinthewind

04-15-2004, 04:10 PM

You're correct. The reporter called him "sir". Bush's reaction however, showed him to be quite an asshole.

LOL - well duh!!!! :laugh:

Who didn't know that already!!!!!!

Next thing you know, this reporter is missing in an undisclosed location being held without counsel as a possible terrorist under under the double secret probation clause of the Patriot Act! :eek: :cool:

gldstwmn

04-15-2004, 04:11 PM

I am not arguing that. I am just saying that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Moreover, the Pres. did nothing wrong by insisting the AP reporter address him by the rules. You all are acting as if W horsewhipped him as if he was a slave fieldhand. I find that to be nitpicky and minisule compared to the big issues here. I cannot stand this whole (not that either of you has said this) the press are sacrosanct and everyone else is wrong. That is BS. This AP reporter misaddressed the Pres. and he rightfully got called on it in my book.

Have you seen the clip?

strandinthewind

04-15-2004, 04:16 PM

Have you seen the clip?

That is just Bush and that whole Texas alpha male thing. Trust me, I grew up in SW Louisiana and spent tons of time in Houston and Dallas. So, I guess I am just used to that.

Note: No slam intended on my Texas friends. I am just commenting in general on what I observed and certainly not all from the great state of Texas have that attribute :cool:

dissention

04-15-2004, 04:17 PM

That is just Bush and that whole Texas alpha male thing. Trust me, I grew up in SW Louisiana and spent tons of time in Houston and Dallas. So, I guess I am just used to that.

That's all fine and dandy, but he can verbally indicate the size of his appendage in private conversations.

strandinthewind

04-15-2004, 04:19 PM

That's all fine and dandy, but he can verbally indicate the size of his appendage in private conversations.

LOL - I mean it sort of reminds me of a typical New Englander or a typical New Yorker. If you are from that area, you are just used to it :laugh:

PLUS - you people act like this was some poor, unsuspecting reporter. If this guy is in the WH press corp., I am sure he can handle that trifle. If not, what the hell is he doing there :laugh:

dissention

04-15-2004, 04:23 PM

LOL - I mean it sort of reminds me of a typical New Englander or a typical New Yorker. If you are from that area, you are just used to it :laugh:

:nod:

Cross this angry New Englander I'll leave you all in a state of vertigo. :lol:

strandinthewind

04-15-2004, 04:24 PM

:nod:

Cross this angry New Englander I'll leave you all in a state of vertigo. :lol:
Haven't I learned that the hard way :laugh:

dissention

04-15-2004, 04:27 PM

Haven't I learned that the hard way :laugh:

:laugh:

You're right about New Englanders, though. Look up rude blow-hards up and there'll be a picture of our region. :lol:

darklinensuit

04-15-2004, 05:16 PM

Gosh, at least America's future is hopeful :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :

Jesse Ventura Eyes 2008 Presidential Bid
34 minutes ago Add Politics - AP to My Yahoo!

By KAREN TESTA, Associated Press Writer

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Refreshed from a semester as a visiting professor at Harvard University, former pro wrestler and Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura says he's considering an independent run for the White House in 2008, although he acknowledges that being leader of the free world might be too confining for him.

"That's an issue with me. I love my freedom," Ventura said in an interview with The Associated Press at his office at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. "The part that would bug me is I wouldn't be able to get up in the night and drive to the 7-11 for a Slurpee, not without them blocking off the roads, welding the manhole covers shut, and everything else that goes along with it."

Ventura has not made a firm decision on a presidential run. He is weighing the concerns of his wife, Terry, who has told him she won't go with him if he wins the White House. His solution: move the White House to Minnesota.

"What would hold me back would be my family. The brutality of the campaign, the ruthlessness of the Democrats and Republicans," he said. "If it looks like I might win, there's no telling what they would do. They're very desperate people when it comes to third parties."

Still, Ventura speaks like a man preparing to be a candidate. He said he'll decide next year because he'll need plenty of time to get on the ballot. And he won't have a political affiliation — "No party, no nothing," he said.

He's already come up with a campaign message: "Elect someone who truly is not controlled by special-interest money. With me, you would get a true check and balance," Ventura said.

One of his first acts would be to try to abolish the income tax in favor of a sales tax, which Ventura says is a better indicator of wealth.

Ventura, 52, shocked the political establishment in 1998 when he used his message of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism — and his sizable personality — to defeat two better-known and better-funded candidates to become Minnesota's governor on a third-party ticket.

But he left office four years later, disillusioned and discouraged after a frustrating final year.

His semester at Harvard — including parties until the wee hours — has renewed his faith in America and his political ambitions, he said.

"The best way I can describe it is rehab," Ventura said. "For someone getting out of office like me, even though I've been out for over a year now, it's equivalent I think to an alcoholic or the drug addict going to the Betty Ford clinic."

Harvard took a calculated risk in inviting the boisterous Ventura, a former Navy SEAL, talk-show host and movie star with only a high school diploma. In his pro wrestling persona, The Body, he draped himself in a pink feather boa.

Harvard Institute of Politics director Dan Glickman, the former congressman and Clinton administration agriculture secretary, said he knew some people privately questioned whether Ventura belonged. Yet by the end of the semester, which concludes Friday, some faculty poked around Ventura's office, hoping to catch a glimpse of the man whose study groups were unconventional but always well attended.

"Quite frankly, he's an important historical force in American politics," Glickman said.

:rolleyes:

- Jake