Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm pretty sure that Dean wasn't calling them racists. I think he was acknowledging that the group, with the damned Confederate flags (which most of them would say have nothing to do with racism, and much more to do with Southern heritage, but then I'm a Texan, so what do I know about the south?), needs to be picked up by the Democratic party.

Sharpton called Dean a racist.

Salon notes that Dean has said this before, back when he was an underdog that didn't have snowball's chance in hell of winning the primary, and that he generally got standing ovations when he said it.

Dean wasn't calling them racists -- he was saying that the party needs to speak for them. What Dean said didn't seem bad to me, and my thought is that Kerry et al. thought they could score cheap points off him by getting the words "Dean" and "confederate flag" into the same sentence.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I would rather live in a world where foreign policy wasn't politicized, but since the President and the GOP crossed that Rubicon a long, long time ago, I'm glad to see the Democrats fighting fire with fire.

its not foreign policy. its an allegation that the president lied to get us into Iraq, you may recall the parameters of the argument Ty.
if its just politics, ala we are raising issues about a war simply to get votes ok. but if they truly think he lied, it shouldn't be tied to the best time to raise it. the best time would be now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm pretty sure that Dean wasn't calling them racists. I think he was acknowledging that the group, with the damned Confederate flags (which most of them would say have nothing to do with racism, and much more to do with Southern heritage, but then I'm a Texan, so what do I know about the south?), needs to be picked up by the Democratic party.

Sharpton called Dean a racist.

Salon notes that Dean has said this before, back when he was an underdog that didn't have snowball's chance in hell of winning the primary, and that he generally got standing ovations when he said it.

Local press in the Boston area focused on Dean's response to Sharpton, which was focused on the flag as a racist symbol, and in which Dean came perilously close to calling them races, though you are right, I don't think he crossed the line and I don't think he meant to. Then he got slammed by Edwards, who almost certainly was mischaracterizing him but very effectively so, and the whole thing made Dean look very bad.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
its not foreign policy. its an allegation that the president lied to get us into Iraq, you may recall the parameters of the argument Ty.
if its just politics, ala we are raising issues about a war simply to get votes ok. but if they truly think he lied, it shouldn't be tied to the best time to raise it. the best time would be now.

Ah, we've all been reminding you of the lies pretty regularly.

The question is at what point to set up an investigation and put these lies back on the front pages.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
It doesn't surprise me that you stomach this without recognizing the unholy aspect. Picture Chicago, 1919. Mayor Daley's father is the secretary of the Hamburg club.

A race riot starts at the 31st street beach when a black kid swims over to a white swimming area. The kid drowns when the whites stone him under. The riots are entirely racial. On the one side, the white ethnic clubs, e.g., the Hamburg club. On the other, the minorities. Dozens are murdered.

Skip ahead to the 1980s. A black mayor is voted in. The ethnic whites in the entirely democratic city stonewall the mayor at every turn. The era is termed the "council wars".

On one side, the great Harold Washington. On the other, Richie Daley, Ed Burke, Ed Vrdolyak, etc....

What do the seemingly unrelated facts have to do with each other, aside from relating the hatred between parties? Well, the parties are the white ethnics and the northern blacks that form the unholy alliance.

Feel free to ditto Detroit, Cleveland, DC, and apparently, the confederate-flag waving areas of the south.

I mean, these people would lynch each other if they were found in each other's respective neighborhoods. They have lynched each other when found in each other's respective neighborhoods. But they all be one big happy group of democrats, right there with the dinosaur-economists and the apologists.

Members of the family fight on occassion. But we all have a seat at the table.

The fact that you see each constituency as a monolithic group, and are ready to characterize ethnic groups in 2003 based on things that happened in Chicago in 1919, tells me quite a bit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ah, we've all been reminding you of the lies pretty regularly.

The question is at what point to set up an investigation and put these lies back on the front pages.

so the point of "the investigation" won't be to investigate or find out anything; they're simply looking to grandstand, not prosecute? the investigation is merely a political ax? I think everyone on the board mainly agrees with me that we all know the answer to both these questions.
frankly, I think the investigations will backfire on the dems, but to the extent it could have helped, maybe it should have come on last month. maybe it would have helped in Miss or Kentucky.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Sunni Ba'athists, for the most part. But we could just call them Arabs and terrorists if that's easier. They all look the same, right?

Some probably are rump Ba'athists - the knowlegeable scouting of local governmental targets indicates their involvement. But there is increasing evidence that many of the attacks, and most of the coordination, is being done by foreign islamists.

And strategically this does not have the earmarks of an indigenous movement. A locally-grown guerilla movement, which would primarily aim to cause the Iraqi people in general to be outraged at the US (due to crackdowns on civilians as the US tries to root out the guerillas - there is a reason guerillas hide among civilians, witness the huge success of this strategy in the Israeli occupied territories) and thereby increase popular support, would not be targeting local Iraqi targets and would have some care for Iraqi civilian casualties. The Iraqis appear to hate these guys as much as we do: they kill schoolchildren and interfere with the rebuilding of infrastructure that is getting life back to normal.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Some probably are rump Ba'athists - the knowlegeable scouting of local governmental targets indicates their involvement. But there is increasing evidence that many of the attacks, and most of the coordination, is being done by foreign islamists.

And strategically this does not have the earmarks of an indigenous movement. A locally-grown guerilla movement, which would primarily aim to cause the Iraqi people in general to be outraged at the US (due to crackdowns on civilians as the US tries to root out the guerillas - there is a reason guerillas hide among civilians, witness the huge success of this strategy in the Israeli occupied territories) and thereby increase popular support, would not be targeting local Iraqi targets and would have some care for Iraqi civilian casualties. The Iraqis appear to hate these guys as much as we do: they kill schoolchildren and interfere with the rebuilding of infrastructure that is getting life back to normal.

The most dangerous areas for U.S. troops are the Sunni areas, which suggests that the threat is more indigenous than foreign, though no doubt there's some of both. The access to the SA-7 missile that shot down the Chinook is more likely someone with ties to the Iraqi military than someone who slipped over the border from Syria -- the reverse is true of the suicide bombers.

Agree in principle re the relationship between the insurgents and the population, but that's what I see them doing. Many of the local targets are, e.g., police, with the obvious aim of discouraging collaboration. Some Iraqis hate them for this stuff, but I suspect many also have lost confidence in us for our failure to deliver on the infrastructure, etc.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Members of the family fight on occassion. But we all have a seat at the table.

The fact that you see each constituency as a monolithic group, and are ready to characterize ethnic groups in 2003 based on things that happened in Chicago in 1919, tells me quite a bit.

Ahem, and the fact that you wish to forget the past, and your (party's) ties to it, tells me quite a bit. Or the fact that you think I should look more to the individual level of each democrat before judging the party. I mean, that is soooo yesterday with the sexual harassment thingy asking for evidence of millions of individual letters to CBS. Indeed!

So, what exactly has changed since November 4, 2003 in Boston, er, the 1980's Chicago City Council, er, the 1919 race riots? You tell me where the common ground is? Cuz it sure ain't in the respective hoods.

Family? Puhleese. Someone peels back the skin and realizes that cousin Bertha is a putrid drug-addled whore* while cousin Joey is a bible-thumping paragon of self-proclaimed virtue who regularly calls for lynching putrid drug-addled whores.

Hello

*Not in any way to suggest which, if only one, of the democratic constituencies is properly characterized as such.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ahem, and the fact that you wish to forget the past, and your (party's) ties to it, tells me quite a bit. Or the fact that you think I should look more to the individual level of each democrat before judging the party. I mean, that is soooo yesterday with the sexual harassment thingy asking for evidence of millions of individual letters to CBS. Indeed!

So, what exactly has changed since November 4, 2003 in Boston, er, the 1980's Chicago City Council, er, the 1919 race riots? You tell me where the common ground is? Cuz it sure ain't in the respective hoods.

Family? Puhleese. Someone peels back the skin and realizes that cousin Bertha is a putrid drug-addled whore* while cousin Joey is a bible-thumping paragon of self-proclaimed virtue who regularly calls for lynching putrid drug-addled whores.

Hello

*Not in any way to suggest which, if only one, of the democratic constituencies is properly characterized as such.

Keep going. Can I recommend some additional consituencies for you to insult: Jews, Seniors, Working Folk, and, of course, Red Sox Fans.

Common ground is found by the voters. Some do, some don't. It's clear with whom you will find common ground. Say hello to Barry for me. (Also, I'm sorry that your movie was moved to Showtime; I understand you are excellent in it.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Some probably are rump Ba'athists - the knowlegeable scouting of local governmental targets indicates their involvement. But there is increasing evidence that many of the attacks, and most of the coordination, is being done by foreign islamists.

And strategically this does not have the earmarks of an indigenous movement. A locally-grown guerilla movement, which would primarily aim to cause the Iraqi people in general to be outraged at the US (due to crackdowns on civilians as the US tries to root out the guerillas - there is a reason guerillas hide among civilians, witness the huge success of this strategy in the Israeli occupied territories) and thereby increase popular support, would not be targeting local Iraqi targets and would have some care for Iraqi civilian casualties. The Iraqis appear to hate these guys as much as we do: they kill schoolchildren and interfere with the rebuilding of infrastructure that is getting life back to normal.

I think it is a mix of an emerging local guerilla movement, not yet coallesced, and folks either returning from abroad or sent from abroad to foment/ aid/ take over that movement.

I expect a lot of infighting among these elements before we have get the number of groups we're fighting down to one or two, and I expect there will be more indigenously bred terrorism as well. They'll kill each other, they'll kill us, they'll kill innocents not engaged. But I am betting it gets worse before it gets better.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The most dangerous areas for U.S. troops are the Sunni areas, which suggests that the threat is more indigenous than foreign, though no doubt there's some of both.

Why? Most of the foreigners they've caught there have been from sunni countries (the most recent attempted terrorist they've caught in Iraq was a Yemmeni with a Syrian passport). Most of the terrorist Islamist movements that have been active against the US are Sunni. Al Qaeda is a sunni movement.

The comparable lack of activity v. US assets & allies in Shia regions speaks more to me of interesting back-door cooperation with Iran than a lack of foreign islamist involvement in attacks within Iraq.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Keep going. Can I recommend some additional consituencies for you to insult: Jews, Seniors, Working Folk, and, of course, Red Sox Fans.

Common ground is found by the voters. Some do, some don't. It's clear with whom you will find common ground. Say hello to Barry for me. (Also, I'm sorry that your movie was moved to Showtime; I understand you are excellent in it.)

Oh please. Would you encourage an extension of the topic in last night's debate? It would be a disaster for the democrats (which was my premise), if their core constituencies put the hate back on the table in a national debate.

But your clowns look just like the right clowns to do it. Me? I'm just an anonymous internet dork giggling at the pet donkeys.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Why? Most of the foreigners they've caught there have been from sunni countries (the most recent attempted terrorist they've caught in Iraq was a Yemmeni with a Syrian passport). Most of the terrorist Islamist movements that have been active against the US are Sunni. Al Qaeda is a sunni movement.

The comparable lack of activity v. US assets & allies in Shia regions speaks more to me of interesting back-door cooperation with Iran than a lack of foreign islamist involvement in attacks within Iraq.

Holdovers from the former regime are more likely to be motivated for secular reasons, and I find it hard to believe that they're coordinating with the religiously-motivated types coming from abroad. If they are, it's really bad news.

In any event, I think the insurgents have a disturbing degree of popular support in the Sunni areas of the country.

And I hope you're right about Iran. But Hersh's piece about the way we ditched the cooperation we were getting from Syria makes me dubious.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Local press in the Boston area focused on Dean's response to Sharpton, which was focused on the flag as a racist symbol, and in which Dean came perilously close to calling them races, though you are right, I don't think he crossed the line and I don't think he meant to. Then he got slammed by Edwards, who almost certainly was mischaracterizing him but very effectively so, and the whole thing made Dean look very bad.

local press in Boston probably isn't where you should look to see the reaction. I mean Mass. probably will stay blue.
and if the Senior Senator from Georgia (D- Miller) knows anything, the whole fight is all for naught- I don't usually quote much but this is all good
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...02miller.html#

Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, FDR, looked south and said, "I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished." Today our national Democratic leaders look south and say, "I see one-third of a nation and it can go to hell."

Too harsh? I don't think so. Consider these facts. In 1960, the state of Georgia gave the Democratic nominee, John F. Kennedy, a higher percentage of its vote than JFK's home state of Massachusetts. Only the percentage in Rhode Island was greater. ............

Except for 1976, when regional pride was a huge factor and native son Jimmy Carter lost only Virginia among the 11 states of the old Confederacy, the scoreboard read like this: In 1968, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas because of Lyndon Johnson, but no other state. Jimmy Carter in 1980 carried only Georgia; the others left the incumbent. In 1992, another native son of the South, Bill Clinton, carried four: Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee. In 1996, Clinton carried Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Florida. So, four times -- 1972, 1984, 1988, and 2000 -- the Democratic candidate couldn't carry a single Southern state. Not one! Zero! Zilch! And two times, 1968 and 1980, only one Southern state favored the Democratic candidate.

Either the party is not a national party or the candidates were not national candidates. Take your pick. ..........

Little has changed, except that Nancy Pelosi has taken the place of Gephardt, which makes it even worse. In 2004, none of the leadership can come. When it comes to romancing the South, they bring their flowery bouquets wrapped in old, dried-up carpetbag containers.

. . . The biggest problem with the party leadership is that they know nothing about the modern South. They still see it as a land of magnolias and mint juleps, with the pointy-headed KKK lurking in the background, waiting to burn a cross or lynch blacks and Jews.
.....................
........................
Al Gore became only the third Democrat since the Civil War to lose every state in the Old Confederacy, plus two border states as well. George McGovern and Walter Mondale were the others. But they had an excuse: they were crushed in national landslides. They didn't just lose the South. They lost from sea to shining sea.

Gore's loss was different. Had he won any state in the Old Confederacy or one more border state, he would be president today. But it didn't happen. Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas and the Democratic bastion of West Virginia. Even Michael Dukakis -- hardly a son of the South -- didn't manage to lose there.

.............
Chances are it's going to happen again. Given the demographic changes that determine the makeup of the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, it will be worse. In 2004, if we have the exact same popular-vote split between the Democratic and Republican candidates, and if these candidates win the same states, the Electoral College margin for the Republican will get bigger. How much bigger? The Republican candidate would have a majority in the Electoral College not by four electors, as George W. Bush did in 2000, but by 18.

. . . It will be difficult for the Democratic Party to nominate a candidate capable of winning nationwide until it abandons the suicidal compulsion of allowing Iowa and New Hampshire to be the tail that always wags the Democratic donkey. Don't misunderstand me. These are good states with good people living in them and good people representing them in public office.

But not by any stretch of one's imagination can the Iowa Democratic caucus be interpreted as representative of the nation. More to the truth, it is simply allowing labor unions to make this most important first decision. And those first decisions more often than not become the ultimate decision.

Consider this: there are 32,000 unionized teachers and 28,000 members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in Iowa -- and are they activists! In 2000, with a hot contest between Al Gore and Bill Bradley, the Iowa caucuses drew 61,000 participants. Add up the above numbers and guess who were the ones who turned out.

By the way, there are four counties in Georgia alone that vote more than twice that number. New Hampshire is a great state, but a microcosm of America it is not. Isn't it strange that based on the outcome in these two states, a Democratic candidate will be chosen? No, it's more than strange; it's suicide.

Did Dean know the part about not being seen as "looking down" on them?
.......