Republican or Democrat?

[satalac]

Republican here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

simple and to the point. i like it. haha. i agree with LeTaureau. we shouldn't have to support the president. he should be the one to support us. that's why we elected him.

[LeTaureau]

Well if Kerry were President, i'd be complaining if you guys didn't support him as well. I wouldn't call you unpatriotic though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you maybe define your stance on "supporting" the president better? It's unclear to me what you mean by this. Its our right, as Americans, to disagree with the president's policies, core beliefs, and anything else we deem to be important, and for that reason I do not support him. I respect him because he is the president, but I do not support him or the job he has been doing.

[gundamdude]

Okay, explain them, heckles!

[yochillout]

Its not worth arguing over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No worries just finish it some other time. I don't think this thread will be going anywhere anytime soon. Anywho I do mean respect him because he is what represents our nation diplomatically and politically. Bush is not the best republican but he represents my beliefs in the most part.

[gundamdude]

I'm with yochillout.

[satalac]

No worries just finish it some other time.  I don't think this thread will be going anywhere anytime soon.  Anywho I do mean respect him because he is what represents our nation diplomatically and politically.  Bush is not the best republican but he represents my beliefs in the most part.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i understand where you are coming from, because it would be nice to say that "yes, i respect my president of this wonderful country." then reality kicks in, and i still do not feel that bush has earned any of my respect. until rove and co. quit playing puppet master and bush realizes that war cannot and will not ever make peace, then i will still not respect this presidency. i wish i could say otherwise, but i just can't.

[yochillout]

Well I thought that Bill Clinton was alright but he shouldn't have been impeached for flirting with another woman and then messing with her. He also wasn't the best president, but he did his best.

[Spartan]

Well, it wasn't the flirting that was the problem- it was the stuff that came after that. Then he lied about it. So you do the math. Clinton didn't do that bad of a job though.

[Urban_Legend]

I heard Bill Clinton might become the next Secretary General of the U.N.

[satalac]

I heard Bill Clinton might become the next Secretary General of the U.N.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i think he'd make an excellent one.

[PghUSA]

Heard that one too. Even as a leaner to the right I think Clinton was a good President--not great but nothing to complain about. The Monica thing you can go around and around with, still think though if he faced up to that as he faced down Newt on the Govt. shutdown the nation would have rallied to him and it would have been a non-issue. As UN SecGen I think he'd be fantastic not only for the UN but also for UN/US relations. My only hesitation with anything Clinton though is that he is kind of like the Oakland A's of the 1970s, he wins, he fixes the problems but then theres other "problems" and some corruption left behind. With the current Oil for food scandal going on as well as the Arab nations walk out on the Holocaust memorial etc. the last thing the UN needs is more scandal. I think Bill's days as scandal central were mostly left in Little Rock though (seems most of the conspiracy theories about corruption in the White House were all old stories recycled from Little Rock). Given the current climate in the world and the UN Clinton's leadership and cred would go a long way in bridging gaps.

[Spartan]

Even though I have no use for the UN as it currently exists, I think Bill Clinton would make a good Secretary General. He was well liked internationally, and it would probably help our international relations. Also, anyone would be better than Kofi Anan. I have no use for him either.

[Spartan]

I doubt he would get it anyway

[PghUSA]

I have heard from those close to Clinton that he would fit perfectly into that role and may even be lobbying for it. As I've mentioned I think he has the ability to really do a great job at it, just hoping that the scandals don't occur again, the UN has too many already. Not making any judgement on scandals maybe your right Heckles that it was much more smoke then actual fire, just tired of the politics as usual and no matter how much it is not their fault politicos should realize that the "appearance" of inpropriety is as bad as the real thing. Its that way for judges, mayors, doctors, even celebrities, right or wrong its part of the job to make sure that scandal doesn't become part of the talking points. As far as the ability to lead the UN I think that he is very capable.

[Brickell]

I thought it was bad enough with the right wing wackos when he was president. I'd have to burn my radio if he became "president of the whole world". Talk about your "new world order".

[knuckle50]

So do you suddenly hate me and my friends guts just because we are Bush supporters?

[knuckle50]

Heckles, I agree with you completely about the 1990's and Clinton. The problem is that the Republicans are just so much better at politics than Democrats that it makes up for their failures on nearly every aspect of policy.

Just think of all the bullcrap that the right wing noise machine throws up all the time. Travelgate? Whitewater? Clinton fudges around and they try to impeach him? What the fudge?

Then let's compare that to Bush. He invaded a country based on false information, deception, and outright deliberate lies. But he's not held accountable, because the Democrats don't bother trying to make it into as big a controversy as it should be, and they don't have the ability. Just think: we INVADED a country based on lies. This should make Watergate look like a joke. I am not using hyperbole here. Invading Iraq was worthy of impeachment, of Bush as well as Cheney. I'm actually moderate-left in my positions, so don't think I'm a nut here. But just think what would've happened if Gore invaded Iraq. He would've been imnpeached by the Republicans.

Bush dropped the ball on 9-11, just read Richard Clarke's book to find out how that happened. If 9-11 had happened on Gore's watch, don't you think the Republicans' ENTIRE campaign would have been based on how Gore fudgeed up?

How did all this happen?

Because the media is controlled by the right-wing, and they are exponentially better at controlling politics than dems. If you want to understand how that happened, read this book, and, if you want an overview, look at this site.

Also aiding the Republicans, until today (Sat), the Democratic Party was controlled by capitulators and spineless idiots. They didn't understand the environment, and they though policies and positions were what mattered. Positions have become obsolete and irrelevant. Media spin and framing is what matters. So they would take a step rightward, and so would the Republicans, moving the entire debate rightwards, alienating their base, and justifying the public perception of the GOP being right.

Now, Dean is DNC chair and Reid is majority leader. Air America is up and running, and Gore TV may be coming. We're taking our country back.

[Spartan]

Then let's compare that to Bush. He invaded a country based on false information, deception, and outright deliberate lies. But he's not held accountable, because the Democrats don't bother trying to make it into as big a controversy as it should be, and they don't have the ability. Just think: we INVADED a country based on lies. This should make Watergate look like a joke. I am not using hyperbole here. Invading Iraq was worthy of impeachment, of Bush as well as Cheney. I'm actually moderate-left in my positions, so don't think I'm a nut here. But just think what would've happened if Gore invaded Iraq. He would've been imnpeached by the Republicans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's interesting.... Congress gave Bush permission to do it, and people like Tom Daschle saw the same intel that Bush did and they came to the same conclusion as him. Bush did invade on incorrect intelligence, but the fault lies in the crappy CIA and other foreign intelligence gathering organizations (that Clinton cut back on btw).

[knuckle50]

That's interesting.... Congress gave Bush permission to do it, and people like Tom Daschle saw the same intel that Bush did and they came to the same conclusion as him. Bush did invade on incorrect intelligence, but the fault lies in the crappy CIA and other foreign intelligence gathering organizations (that Clinton cut back on btw).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Congress, full of the capitulating, deer-in-the-headlights, post-9/11 Democrats, voted for authorization so Bush wold have the leverage to go to war. To put it bluntly, they became pussies from 9/11 until... about now, because they thought they had to be to keep getting elected.

You can rationalize it however you want. But you're saying that Bush shouldn't be held responsible for killing over 1,500 American soldiers and at least 18,000 Iraqis - a conservative estimate. Saying it was the CIA's fault is outright, idiotic, disgusting, bulls_it. Just read Richard Clarke's book to find out the Bush pushed for the war after 9/11. He pushed for deliberately gerrymandered intelligence, and even if he didn't, whether it was his fault or not, he sent the country to war based on lies and that warrants impeachment. Period. No rationalizations, bulls_it. etc.

Just accountability.

[Spartan]

Congress, full of the capitulating, deer-in-the-headlights, post-9/11 Democrats, voted for authorization so Bush wold have the leverage to go to war. To put it bluntly, they became pussies from 9/11 until... about now, because they thought they had to be to keep getting elected.

You can rationalize it however you want. But you're saying that Bush shouldn't be held responsible for killing over 1,500 American soldiers and at least 18,000 Iraqis - a conservative estimate. Saying it was the CIA's fault is outright, idiotic, disgusting, bulls_it. Just read Richard Clarke's book to find out the Bush pushed for the war after 9/11. He pushed for deliberately gerrymandered intelligence, and even if he didn't, whether it was his fault or not, he sent the country to war based on lies and that warrants impeachment. Period. No rationalizations, bulls_it. etc.

Just accountability.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not saying Bush shouldn't be held responsible, I am saying that he shouldn't be held solely responsible. Richard Clarke's book? Ha. Might as well read Michael Moore. You seem to want to hate Bush. Thats cool- I have no problem with that. You say he went in based on lies, but you don't understand where those lies come from. That is a typical left-wing respone. There is no one person to blame here. I personally think Paul Wolfowitz had something to do with it. Bush doesn't jump into a road with out checking for cars first, but you can't fault him for not being able to see over the hill.

The thing I don't understand about the left is that they are so quick to slam Bush on Iraq (which is fine), and they continue to argue that we shouldn't have gone in. They don't seem to realize that we are there now. Its too late to change our minds. So Bush screwed up? If we pull out now it will make the US appear weak, and it will encourage more terrorism. If a few car bombs each week is all it takes, then what is next? The United States has to see this mistake through to the end whether we like it or not.

[knuckle50]

I'm not saying Bush shouldn't be held responsible, I am saying that he shouldn't be held solely responsible. Richard Clarke's book? Ha. Might as well read Michael Moore. You seem to want to hate Bush. Thats cool- I have no problem with that. You say he went in based on lies, but you don't understand where those lies come from. That is a typical left-wing respone. There is no one person to blame here. I personally think Paul Wolfowitz had something to do with it. Bush doesn't jump into a road with out checking for cars first, but you can't fault him for not being able to see over the hill.

The thing I don't understand about the left is that they are so quick to slam Bush on Iraq (which is fine), and they continue to argue that we shouldn't have gone in. They don't seem to realize that we are there now. Its too late to change our minds. So Bush screwed up? If we pull out now it will make the US appear weak, and it will encourage more terrorism. If a few car bombs each week is all it takes, then what is next? The United States has to see this mistake through to the end whether we like it or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When are people in this country going to realize that once a country has an entrenched insurgency, YOU CAN'T WIN. If a country doesn't want you there, it is not possible to win. The Soviets learned it in Afghanistan, we learned it in Vietnam, and now we've forgotten it. How can you even think there's a possibility of winning a war that has been run so incompetently?

Have you read Richard Clarke's book? what evidence do you have to suggest that he's a left-winger? You're just drinking the Republican kool-aid without even putting any thought into it. The minute he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission, the Bush administration engaged in an unprecedented character assasination campaign. And you drank it right up, completely ignorant of the merits of what he was saying. What evidence do you have to suggest that every single thing he said wasn't true? You haven't read the book, so you don't know. It's not about Bush, it's about Clarke's career. Bush isn't even mentioned until the last 40 pages or so, and even then it's pretty mild and pretty damned far from a polemic. It just describes what happened. But of course, facts that don't chime with a right-winger's opinion are automatically wrong.

[monsoon]

Everything that has been said here about Bush going to war is true. It is a terrible situation and our military should not be used to spread our form of government to other countries. I can't add more to the discussion on this matter.

However I will also point out that a majority of Democrats glady jumped on the wagon and gave Bush the Congressional backing he needed to go to war. They were happy to give Bush a blank check as long as they thought it would make THEM look good. This included not only the entire Democratic leadership but Kerry as well. These Democrats should have fought Bush tooth and nail to delay the war until we knew more information. But the so called "party of the people" abdicated this responsibility and now thousands are dead. In falling in line with Bush, they lost all the moral high ground on this issue and only demonstrated there is no longer any reason to vote for them.

What do the Democrats stand for?

To me the Democrats are just as rotten as the Republicans and neither party serves the common person anymore. People should be holding these parties accountable. Instead they fight over which one is better and lose focus on the real issues.

[knuckle50]

Everything that has been said here about Bush going to war is true.  It is a terrible situation and our military should not be used to spread our form of government to other countries.  I can't add more to the discussion on this matter.

However I will also point out that a majority of Democrats glady jumped on the wagon and gave Bush the Congressional backing he needed to go to war.  They were happy to give Bush a blank check as long as they thought it would make THEM look good.  This included not only the entire Democratic leadership but Kerry as well.  These Democrats should have fought Bush tooth and nail to delay the war until we knew more information.  But the so called "party of the people" abdicated this responsibility and now thousands are dead.  In falling in line with Bush, they lost all the moral high ground on this issue and only demonstrated there is no longer any reason to vote for them. 

What do the Democrats stand for?

To me the Democrats are just as rotten as the Republicans and neither party serves the common person anymore.  People should be holding these parties accountable. Instead they fight over which one is better and lose focus on the real issues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you. Or should I say agreed. Seems like you haven't been keeping up with recent news. Howard Dean is the new DNC chair. He's the guy that wanted to take the party back from the compromisers and wimps and put it in the hands of the people. He's in charge of organization. and he's one of the best grassroots organizers there is. He's a fighter, and he's wrenching the party from the hands of the special interests.

Have you heard anything about Harry Reid? He's looking to be one of the best leaders we've ever had - he's the new Senate Democratic Leader. He's set up a war room, and promised to actually OPPOSE the Republican agenda instead of going along with it. He may be the single reason we win the debate over whether to phase out Social Security - he's keeping the caucus together.

We're taking the party back. If you want to know about what's happening, I'd recommend these blogs:

http://dailykos.com

http://talkingpointsmemo.com

http://atrios.blogspot.com

You don't have to sit and watch the party that should be fighting for your values collapse. Get involved with the grassroots.

[monsoon]

I am aware of Dean's new position. I will point out his campaign was the biggest political failure of 2004 and he is now supposed to lead the Democratic party?

The Starbucks crowd does love to love Dean, but this isn't the bunch that wins elections. I am not convinced a New England Liberal can put together a platform that is going to win back the South and the mid-West. This branch of the party hasn't won the Presidency since 1960 and then just barely. I've said many times that if a candidate can't win in the South, then they are not going to win.

I can tell you now that I will not vote for either the Democrats or Republicans in the next election. Not until one of them quits being a party of special interests and starts to look at the common person again. Neither one does that now.

[knuckle50]

I am aware of Dean's new position.  I will point out his campaign was the biggest political failure of 2004 and he is now supposed to lead the Democratic party?

The Starbucks crowd does love to love Dean, but this isn't the bunch that wins elections.  I am not convinced a New England Liberal can put together a platform that is going to win back the South and the mid-West.  This branch of the party hasn't won the Presidency since 1960 and then just barely.  I've said many times that if a candidate can't win in the South, then they are not going to win.

I can tell you now that I will not vote for either the Democrats or Republicans in the next election.  Not until one of them quits being a party of special interests and starts to look at the common person again.  Neither one does that now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where did you get this junk from? You're just eating up the Kool Aid that the Republican Noise Machine throws out. Dean ran a great campaign, but the media crucified him because he was enthusiastic. He is a man of the people.

Democrats will not win in the South in either of our lifetimes. The South is now ideologically conservative. Dean can and will win us elections. If he's not the real thing, hes close enough for me. Not liking someone because of the REGION they're from or because of the lies and deceptions thrown out by the Republican Noise Machine (i.e. "the Starbucks crowd" bullsh_t) is ridiculous.