Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Did Kerry crudely mention that Dick Cheney’s daughter was a lesbian for purely political reasons? Yes, of course, but I don’t care.

No, but you Republicans should feel happy for having diverted attention from Bush's feat of losing three straight debates.

Is Dick Cheney’s daughter a lesbian?

And a GOP activist.

Did GW let Osama Bin Laden escape at Toro Bora?

Yes, but Bush isn't concerned about this.

Does John Kerry change his positions on issues a lot?

No more so than President Flip-Flop.

Did George Bush get preferential treatment to get into the National Guard, and then not show up sometimes? Undoubtedly.

You said it.

Did John Kerry exaggerate and lie about his military record?

Not in any material way, but if a large number of Republicans spend a large sum of money to convince you otherwise, who knows?

Is the doomed Federal Marriage Amendment a stupid, bigoted, paranoid idea? Yup, it sure is.

Exactly, but the real point is to win an election by demonizing gays and lesbians (like Cheney's daughter), not to change the Constitution.

Did the Bush tax cut save the economy? No, it probably had only a marginal effect.

Yes, and very, very marginal. As in, less marginal than lots of other ways the same money could have been used.

Has the Bush tax cut and big spending doomed us by letting the deficit get out of control?

No, there's still time for a Democratic president to try to right things.

Has there been a net job loss during the Bush administration? Yeah.

See, e.g., Calvin Coolidge.

Is there a social security crisis? No, but it could use some improvement.

But if Bush wins, you'll be hearing about the "crisis" in support of a privatization plan.

Is there a health care crisis? No, but it could use some improvement.

Unless you get sick, in which case things look less rosy.

Is it a mistake for Bush to have cut off federal funding for certain kinds of stem cell research? Yeah, maybe, but it’s not a big deal.

Unless you get sick, in which case things look less rosy.

Is the flu vaccine debacle a big mess? Yes, it’s kinda dumb, but the only time I got a flu shot, I got the flu two days later, so I don’t care.

Unless you get sick, in which case things look less rosy.

Are the Republicans destroying the environment?

No, they're greasing the wheels so that industry can do it.

Are George Bush and John Ashcroft taking away our civil liberties? No, we have more civil liberties than we know what to do with. I have yet to meet or even hear of anyone who has been impacted by the Patriot Act.

[insert obvious rejoinder here]

Is John Kerry a glib, phony liberal? Well yeah, but what’s your point?

No, but Republicans spending $$$ on ads can invent their own reality.

Is George Bush a dyslexic, inarticulate, simpleton?

No.

Did John Kerry give aid and comfort to the enemy during the Vietnam war?

No, but morons will always confuse dissent in a democracy with such things.

Will George Bush fight the war against the jihadists with everything he’s got, without wavering, without backing down, no matter what?

No. See, e.g., Fallujah.

Will Kerry?

We'll find out come January.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, but you Republicans should feel happy for having diverted attention from Bush's feat of losing three straight debates.



And a GOP activist.



Yes, but Bush isn't concerned about this.



No more so than President Flip-Flop.



You said it.



Not in any material way, but if a large number of Republicans spend a large sum of money to convince you otherwise, who knows?



Exactly, but the real point is to win an election by demonizing gays and lesbians (like Cheney's daughter), not to change the Constitution.



Yes, and very, very marginal. As in, less marginal than lots of other ways the same money could have been used.



No, there's still time for a Democratic president to try to right things.



See, e.g., Calvin Coolidge.



But if Bush wins, you'll be hearing about the "crisis" in support of a privatization plan.



Unless you get sick, in which case things look less rosy.



Unless you get sick, in which case things look less rosy.



Unless you get sick, in which case things look less rosy.



No, they're greasing the wheels so that industry can do it.



[insert obvious rejoinder here]



No, but Republicans spending $$$ on ads can invent their own reality.



No.



No, but morons will always confuse dissent in a democracy with such things.



No. See, e.g., Fallujah.



We'll find out come January.

RT insists I ask you if you have a PayPal account. Do you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
We did the same thing (if anything) during the Cold War with terrorists. Slowly the violence built. We responded lightly. Then 9/11. Then knowledge of the A.Q. Khan network of rogue WMD networks. Bush has responded by getting Saudi Arabia (slowly) to crack down; by getting Libya to renounce terrorism; by getting Pakistan (slowly, and really only after attempts on their President's life) to crack down; by renouncing Yasser Arafat and the politics of terror; by greatly increasing our nation's intelligence capabilities; and by invading Iraq.

He has gotten Saudi Arabia to do next to nothing. I'm not saying that Kerry could have done better, but don't kid yourself. What happened with Libya started under Bush's father and continued under Clinton. Renouncing Arafat has done nothing to curb terrorism against us -- the Palestinians don't gun for us -- but it may make other Arabs resent us more. Not that I'm an Arafat fan. And when you talk about increasing intelligence capabilities, there was bipartisan agreement about that after 9/11.

And then there's Iraq.

He is confronting and isolating Syria, N. Korea and Iran. In fact, Syrian and Iran are basically surrounded by our allied states now. Bush has put troops and/or equipment in other parts of the mid-East and Africa, in the Phillipines, and anywhere else our enemy exists and can be confronted directly without incurring undue costs.

Unclear that Syria supports terrorism against us. Against Israel, sure, but Syria was actually helping us against Al Qaeda before the invasion of Iraq. And then we "isolated" them.

Like the Bushies, you see the war on terror as one of confronting rogue states. But some of these states (Syria, North Korea) have nothing to do with the Islamists. And other states (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq) now are a haven for terrorists, not because the central government supports them but because the state's authority is limited. Failed states are a problem for us.

Except for follow-up support in Afghanistan, and British, Polish, Italian, Spanish and Australian support in Iraq, our allies have done little to condone or contribute to our efforts. We simply cannot count on their support. Now you tell me, which of these actions and initiatives would Kerry have led? We have a 30 year history to go on. What can we expect in the future from him. What will he do to apply pressure? Who will he confront? Who will he ignore. And who will he simply react to?

Our allies are with us in Afghanistan, which is a war Democrats were fully with. Gore or Kerry would have done something similar there after 9/11, but might have invested more in the rebuilding to get a government whose writ extends beyond Kabul.

Iraq is a different story, but many of us think it was a wrong turn in the war on terror.

Bush's history pre-9/11 gave precious little indication of what he's done for the last three years. Who would have thought that he, in particular, would be trying to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq to bring democracy to them?

His record in the old days is not exactly a shining star, and those days are over. He certainly has not advocated withdrawing from the world, so what exactly is his plan? Because, at best, it sounds like he's on-board to making things the way they were when we were reacting with Officer Dibble. And with his base, you know he will never say that he will order an invasion alone if the threat warrants such action. So what's conceited about this belief? Its based on his record and his silence for the last 30 years and during this campaign. You might hope he's only pandering to the far left in the party, but if he doesn't affirm the policy of preemption, he has given you no reason to believe that his plan to return to the old days of reaction and containment with allies is only our conceit.

I have no idea what you see in Kerry's record that seems germane to you to the war on terror.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I can't tell from the transcript. I may actually have to watch Crossfire.

Late to the party, and I bet you all discussed this already, but, WTH -

I did. (Watch the clip, I mean.)

Stewart came on bitching that CF does a disservice to the voter. This was after Stewart did his fawning non-interview with Kerry on his show.

I thought this was high comedy all by itself.

Stewart should have Garafolo and Springsteen on next week to give us all a more serious, balanced look at Amerikkka.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Late to the party, and I bet you all discussed this already, but, WTH -

I did. (Watch the clip, I mean.)

Stewart came on bitching that CF does a disservice to the voter. This was after Stewart did his fawning non-interview with Kerry on his show.

I thought this was high comedy all by itself.

Stewart should have Garafolo and Springsteen on next week to give us all a more serious, balanced look at Amerikkka.

To borrow from Stewart, if you hold CNN to the same standards you hold Comedy Central, that's fair.

And FWIW, Ralph Reed and Marc Racicot got the same sort of questions that Kerry did.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To borrow from Stewart, if you hold CNN to the same standards you hold Comedy Central, that's fair.

Have to. Kerry wouldn't go on CF, but went on CC. He knew JS would sniff his throne nicely, and JS has a much bigger viewership. JS could have done what he was complaining the other guys didn't do, and could have done it more effectively (if your goal is to educate the biggest group.) JS remains a partisan windbag.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Have to. Kerry wouldn't go on CF, but went on CC. He knew JS would sniff his throne nicely, and JS has a much bigger viewership. JS could have done what he was complaining the other guys didn't do, and could have done it more effectively (if your goal is to educate the biggest group.) JS remains a partisan windbag.

I guess whether you like Stewart depends on whether you agree with him and find him funny, and since neither of those fits you I'm a little surprised that you even know what he's been up to. But perhaps that explains why you don't seem to understand Stewart's criticisms of Crossfire. Here's a hint: It's not that they fail to ask hard questions.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Is it a mistake for Bush to have cut off federal funding for certain kinds of stem cell research? Yeah, maybe, but it’s not a big deal.

You should go research this one before you incorporate it into your mantra. Prior to Bush allowing federal funding for research on certain lines of embryonic stem cells, $0 federal dollars had been spent for embryonic stem cell research. I don't see how you can characterize that as Bush cutting off federal funding. Bush took $0 of funding and allowed funding for embryonic stem cell lines already in existence. He didn't cut off federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He started it. Prior to Bush's presidency, not a dime of federal money had ever funded embryonic stem cell research.

Also, be clear in your mantra. It is embryonic stem cell research we are talking about. The kind where you purposefully create a human life and then terminate it harvest the cells for research. There are no restrictions on adult stem cell research. So don't say stem cell research in your mantra. Be clear. It is embryonic stem cell research and Bush was the first president under which even a dime of federal funds was spent on embryonic stem cell research.

Also before you put that one in your mantra, could you 'splain to me the moral difference between accidentally creating a human life by having unprotected sex and then ending the life vs. purposefully creating a human life for the one and only purpose of terminating it to harvest the cells for experiments.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

From Ron Suskind's article in today's NYT Magazine -- a must read, BTW:

• In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
  
  ''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''
  
  Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
  
  Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''
  
  The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.
  
  A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''

No one else in the room felt comfortable telling Bush that Sweden has an army.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I guess whether you like Stewart depends on whether you agree with him and find him funny, and since neither of those fits you I'm a little surprised that you even know what he's been up to. But perhaps that explains why you don't seem to understand Stewart's criticisms of Crossfire. Here's a hint: It's not that they fail to ask hard questions.

Why always look for the oversimplified answer, Ty?

(Which, actually, is JS's complaint.)

I think he's a riot. But, just as I don't look to my favorite singers to educate me on cell biology, I don't look to good comics for political education.

He claims that this little news show does us a disservice by reducing everything to a quick slogan - by not truly debating the issues in any meaningful way.

Well, the little news show gives us no more and no less than its viewers will stand for. Try a three hour panel discussion on health care catastrophic capping - but only try it once, because you won't be on the next time. We will tune it out, and it will be cancelled.

But JS was one of the few people of intelligence that had Kerry on a show, available for intelligent discussion. Don't tell me that he couldn't go political there - he does it all the time. Yeah, it was on his comedy talk show, but his complaint about CF rings hollow if he can't step out of the mold for ten minutes and give us substance. He wants CF to step out of their mold - why not him?

I think it's sour grapes because he doesn't think Kerry's "message" is getting out. It's just too depressing for him to think that maybe it IS getting out, and that's the problem.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
You should go research this one before you incorporate it into your mantra.

I guess I wasn't clear for a few, 'cuz that was someone else's mantra. I just liked the whole point of it, at the end - Bush will be aggressive in the coming war, and Kerry will not. That's the main point for oh-so-many voters.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Why always look for the oversimplified answer, Ty?

(Which, actually, is JS's complaint.)

I think he's a riot. But, just as I don't look to my favorite singers to educate me on cell biology, I don't look to good comics for political education.

He claims that this little news show does us a disservice by reducing everything to a quick slogan - by not truly debating the issues in any meaningful way.

Well, the little news show gives us no more and no less than its viewers will stand for. Try a three hour panel discussion on health care catastrophic capping - but only try it once, because you won't be on the next time. We will tune it out, and it will be cancelled.

But JS was one of the few people of intelligence that had Kerry on a show, available for intelligent discussion. Don't tell me that he couldn't go political there - he does it all the time. Yeah, it was on his comedy talk show, but his complaint about CF rings hollow if he can't step out of the mold for ten minutes and give us substance. He wants CF to step out of their mold - why not him?

I think it's sour grapes because he doesn't think Kerry's "message" is getting out. It's just too depressing for him to think that maybe it IS getting out, and that's the problem.

Stewart stepped out of the mold when he came up with TDS. You get more substance in a single show than you do in several hours of Crossfire, which is a massive waste of space. You have a valid point when you say that that's what viewers want. Presumably, there's a reason why people watch CNN instead of CSPAN.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Stewart stepped out of the mold when he came up with TDS. You get more substance in a single show than you do in several hours of Crossfire, which is a massive waste of space.

I agree. That's why I thought his non-use of his Kerry time was almost criminal. To complain that an insubstantial show like CF missed the boat, when JS never even looked for the dock, is just . . . argh.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I agree. That's why I thought his non-use of his Kerry time was almost criminal. To complain that an insubstantial show like CF missed the boat, when JS never even looked for the dock, is just . . . argh.

I don't understand why they have live guests. They never do much of anything with them, and the bits are poorly integrated with the rest of the show. I am often tempted to go to bed after the first 15 minutes. I didn't see the show with Kerry on it, but it doesn't sound much more useful than the shows where Ralph Reed and Marc Racicot appeared. I saw both of these and thought, what's the point?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
I guess I wasn't clear for a few, 'cuz that was someone else's mantra. I just liked the whole point of it, at the end - Bush will be aggressive in the coming war, and Kerry will not. That's the main point for oh-so-many voters.

Kerrey, like Clinton, doesn't even think it is a war. Just a crime.