Politics: A new beginning

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I was talking to someone close to Ron Klain a few months ago, and we got to talking about the election. He pointed out that Buchanan made sure to do his campaigning only in states where he couldn't affect the outcome, but that Nader -- while saying that his goal was to get the Greens to 5% -- did the opposite, and did not campaign in places like Austin, where he could have pulled in votes without making a difference in the electoral tally, but instead campaigned in places where he could hurt Gore, like Seattle.

That makes sense. If you are truly a radical who wants to change the system (as Nader claims to be) -- you want to damage the more "mainstream" party on your ideological side in order to cripple it, to ensure the victory of the "other side", and to use the ensuing anger/frustration/helplessness of the people on your side to mobilize support for more radical change when they believe that there is no palatable effective mainstream alternative.

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
70% of America is thankful it turned out that way, if what you say is true.

PS The page I visitied says Gore won Washington by 5%. He almost lost Oregon, but crept in.

Right on Washington. I meant something else.

Where are you getting 70% from? Dean has a 70% favorability rating; Bush's is just below 60% these days according to Zogby. Favorability generally overstates performance in a two-way election, unless a candidate either is or is pitted against someone with an absolutely miserable favorability index.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Right on Washington. I meant something else.

Where are you getting 70% from? Dean has a 70% favorability rating; Bush's is just below 60% these days according to Zogby. Favorability generally overstates performance in a two-way election, unless a candidate either is or is pitted against someone with an absolutely miserable favorability index.

My 70% is my personally compiled number of people who are glad bush was President on 9/11, and not Gore. It is a conservative number.
As to your 70% Dean number, cite please. He is Jimmy Carter with an Oliver Stone conspircay complex.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My 70% is my personally compiled number of people who are glad bush was President on 9/11, and not Gore. It is a conservative number.

It's funny to me how often people -- usually avowed supporters of the President, and not swing voters or Democrats -- repeat this idea about how glad we all were that Bush was the President on 9/11. I don't recall feeling glad that he flew from Florida to wherever to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, or that he and his people seemed out of their league in the first several days. Giuliani made a much better impression. Then Bush gave a half-decent speech -- not particularly good in my book, but not bad, either -- and people rallied around him, because we were upset and shocked and wanted to come together and he was in charge.

If Gore had been in charge, and had kept the people in the Clinton Administration who had focused on terrorism, maybe something would have been done in the several months before September that might have averted the attacks. Hindsight is 20/20, but it's pretty clear that terrorism was a low priority for the Bushies until 9/11. It's hard to see how things would have been any worse under Gore. It's equally hard to imagine that Gore would have done any worse in invading Afghanistan.

I suspect that when conservatives are talking this way, it's because they imagine that they would not have been able to support a Gore Administration in the days after 9/11 in the way that we all supported the Bushies. A recollection, if you will, of the way that many conservatives were unwilling to accept that Clinton was elected President twice.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ohio, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington, and several other states were Bush victories by very narrow margins. Interestingly, if you exclude the close states, and call all the states Gore won by a handy margin for Dean, Dean will start off with more electoral votes than Bush (thank you, NY and California).

Ohio is an interesting one, because Gore pulled all his resources out of Ohio early yet came very close in the state (STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!).

Is everyone presuming that Dean is the nominee? I'm not so sure. What I see is a Gephart/Dean win in Iowa and a Dean blow out in NH. Dean may also squeak by in SC. But then I see a consolidation of the the Clark, Gephart, Lieberman, and Edwards forces to run as an anti-Dean candidate. If you look at the polling numbers in most areas, a 2 person race tilts towards a someone other than Dean nominee (assuming most of the "other" supporters do not allign with Dean).

I hope Dean is the nominee, but I fear that Gephart or Clark will present a much tougher race for Bush.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My 70% is my personally compiled number of people who are glad bush was President on 9/11, and not Gore. It is a conservative number.
As to your 70% Dean number, cite please. He is Jimmy Carter with an Oliver Stone conspircay complex.

Check Zogby's for Dean's favorability - I believe it was early December. Don't put too much store in any favorability ratings, especially for someone who doesn't yet represent you. The favorability ratings for Dean in Vermont would be meaningful; for Dean nationally, it just means that he has effective advertising. Americans as a whole (unlike this board) are well-disposed toward candidates until they really get to know them.

On Gore versus Bush on 9/11 - get real! Gore was always perceived as a steady, calm influence, very much the guy who does well in a crisis. He lost because he wasn't sufficiently entertaining, not because Americans didn't have faith in his capability.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
On Gore versus Bush on 9/11 - get real! Gore was always perceived as a steady, calm influence, very much the guy who does well in a crisis. He lost because he wasn't sufficiently entertaining, not because Americans didn't have faith in his capability.

You have now officially joined Ty and Atticus in the "they've lost it" crowd.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If Gore had been in charge, and had kept the people in the Clinton Administration who had focused on terrorism, maybe something would have been done in the several months before September that might have averted the attacks. Hindsight is 20/20, but it's pretty clear that terrorism was a low priority for the Bushies until 9/11.

Ignorance Is Strength!
When you say stuff like this, I think "Maybe he's joking." But I know you're not, and then it gets harder to take other things you say credibly. The "people in the Clinton Administration who focused on terrorism?"
If you're right about the whole erosion of liberties/Big Brother thing, you might be able to get Winston Smith's old job in Records.

It's hard to see how things would have been any worse under Gore. It's equally hard to imagine that Gore would have done any worse in invading Afghanistan.

Clinton did worse, Gore might have done little more. This part is impossible to predict, but I am not confident Gore would have taken the steps to knock out the Taliban. For the record, I can accept Atticus' analysis, from the 3rd from last time this came up, that Gore certainly woould have invaded, but I'm really not sure.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You have now officially joined Ty and Atticus in the "they've lost it" crowd.

Please. I'm sure I lost it when Ty and Atticus were still in grammar school.

I know I certainly lost it when Reagan was cutting student aid, effectively greasing the ladder that had been so carefully build from the time of the GI bill on. And I lost it when he built up the military budget in a time of peace, taking the funds from services while simultaneously leaving an enormous deficit. And before that, I'd lost it when Ford pardoned Nixon, one of the greatest criminals of our time. Nixon's invasion of Cambadia was another time I lost it. And at that point, if Ty was even born yet I'll bet he was iin diapers.

So I lost it a long time ago.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Please. I'm sure I lost it when Ty and Atticus were still in grammar school.

I know I certainly lost it when Reagan was cutting student aid, effectively greasing the ladder that had been so carefully build from the time of the GI bill on. And I lost it when he built up the military budget in a time of peace, taking the funds from services while simultaneously leaving an enormous deficit. And before that, I'd lost it when Ford pardoned Nixon, one of the greatest criminals of our time. Nixon's invasion of Cambadia was another time I lost it. And at that point, if Ty was even born yet I'll bet he was iin diapers.

So I lost it a long time ago.

The designation is not based on when you lost it, but when I realized that you lost it.

I don't feel like arguing about the rest of your ridiculous post, but I will say that you are employing quite a bit of revisionist history to call the cold war "a time of peace."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ignorance Is Strength!
When you say stuff like this, I think "Maybe he's joking." But I know you're not, and then it gets harder to take other things you say credibly. The "people in the Clinton Administration who focused on terrorism?"
If you're right about the whole erosion of liberties/Big Brother thing, you might be able to get Winston Smith's old job in Records.


Clinton did worse, Gore might have done little more. This part is impossible to predict, but I am not confident Gore would have taken the steps to knock out the Taliban. For the record, I can accept Atticus' analysis, from the 3rd from last time this came up, that Gore certainly woould have invaded, but I'm really not sure.

You should read about Sandy Berger's briefings for Condi Rice during the transition, and what the Bush Administration then did until 9/11. As I say, it's hard to fault them too much in hindsight, but if Orwell were with us he would have much more to say about the way the supporters of this Administration defend it. Your use of 1984 is missing the point more than a little bit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Some people in the administration want to cut and run:

• Some in the administration "want to get Iraq right, and that group [needs] a longer time frame," said Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security advisor to former President George H.W. Bush. "At the other extreme, there are some whose goal is to get Iraq off the front pages by August."
  
  ....Said one person close to the process: "If we have something that vaguely looks like a government, and we don't have Americans dying every day, that would be a wild success."

link

Hopefully the former group can hold off Karl Rove et al. long enough to try to do the job right.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The designation is not based on when you lost it, but when I realized that you lost it.

I don't feel like arguing about the rest of your ridiculous post, but I will say that you are employing quite a bit of revisionist history to call the cold war "a time of peace."

Ah, Ty, what do you think -- another "slow learner"?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You should read about Sandy Berger's briefings for Condi Rice during the transition, and what the Bush Administration then did until 9/11.

Cite please.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Some people in the administration want to cut and run:

• Some in the administration "want to get Iraq right, and that group [needs] a longer time frame," said Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security advisor to former President George H.W. Bush. "At the other extreme, there are some whose goal is to get Iraq off the front pages by August."
  
  ....Said one person close to the process: "If we have something that vaguely looks like a government, and we don't have Americans dying every day, that would be a wild success."

link

Hopefully the former group can hold off Karl Rove et al. long enough to try to do the job right.

I heard about this as well. Interestingly, it is the "neocons" that are pushing to stay as long as it takes, while the politicals and state department wants to cut and run.