Democrats might have just cost themselves the election

[Jason Menard]

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20031105-093416-2326r.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/5/180521.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/4/165925.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/intelligence.flap/index.html
The Dems on the Senate Intelligence Committee (oxymoron?) got caught with a memo laying out their plans to use their positions to seek information to discredit the administration in order to help their party out during the 2004 Presidential election. A retiring Democrat Senator, Zell Miller, referred to the plans outlined in the memo as "treasonous". He's pretty close to the mark it would seem, as that is exactly what releasing classified intelligence information to the public could be considered. If this issue sticks, it may very well cost them the election in 2004, as the public will simply blow off anything the Dems use to try to attack the President with on Iraq.
[ November 06, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

I cannot imagine anybody still takes "intelligence information" seriously...

[Rufus BugleWeed]

At first glance it seems too complicated for you average southern NASCAR voter type to comprehend. On the other hand we are still waiting for J Edgar Ashcroft and his G-Men to release the poop on who leaked the ambassadors wife's operative status. And let's not forget the elections is over in Philly and the administration can issue inditements for the mayor or his staff any time now.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I cannot imagine anybody still takes "intelligence information" seriously...

Maybe we should just ignore all intel, or not even bother to collect it? :roll:

[Mapraputa Is]

Why you are so serious this morning.
--------------------
"No language can express every thought unambiguously, least of all this one." -- D. Hofstadter, Metamagical themas

[Michael Ernest]

I glanced over a newspaper headline this morning that said Americans are more polarized as Democrats and Republicans than they ever were.
I have no idea why people say they miss the Cold War; we appear to have brought the whole idea in-house, and it is working quite well.

[Mapraputa Is]

I have no idea why people say they miss the Cold War; we appear to have brought the whole idea in-house, and it is working quite well.
Funny thing, I was just thinking about the same. I cannot stop to be amused by the level of hatred that both parties direct at each other. As I cannot live without a decent explanation, I developed a theory. A human being has some level of hatred genetically wired. In past we could express it at blacks, or at communists. Now damn PC prohibit racism, and communism mysteriously disappeared I bet, it was communist's last conspiracy, the ultimate way to undermine capitalism). What we are left with? Well, "liberals" and "conservatives" would serve just as well. On international scale, a holy place can never be empty^*) too. No communism, Ok, here will be Islamic threat. Now a handful of terrorist and a dozen of third world countries are assigned to represent a global threat. They are doing pretty well so far...
---------------------
^*) This is a Russian saying.
[ November 06, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
I glanced over a newspaper headline this morning that said Americans are more polarized as Democrats and Republicans than they ever were.

You mean even more so than in 1860?

[Jason Menard]

Now a handful of terrorist and a dozen of third world countries are assigned to represent a global threat.
A handful?! Whatever you are smoking, share it with the rest of us. Do you honestly believe that there are only a small number of these people?
Your statement indicates then that international terrorism is not a global threat at worst, and at best seeks to greatly minimize the scope of such a threat. I find such a sentiment completely incomprehensible and utterly unbelievable.

[HS Thomas]

*) Drinking every night ? More accurately :*)
regards

[Mapraputa Is]

A handful?! Whatever you are smoking, share it with the rest of us.

Do you honestly believe that there are only a small number of these people?
Everything is relative. Compared to the most powerful military on the earth, yes, I believe the number is small.
Your statement indicates then that international terrorism is not a global threat at worst, and at best seeks to greatly minimize the scope of such a threat. I find such a sentiment completely incomprehensible and utterly unbelievable.
We might understand different things by "global threat". My idea about "global threat" is it would put the existence of mankind as a whole in question. You perhaps mean that they are acting on global scale rather than regional?

[Mapraputa Is]

LoL
Have you seen Google Ads in this thread?
On the Left: Stop Bush's Right Wind Agenda Join Us and Help Fight the Right.
On the Right: Support the RNC and the President's Compassionate Conservative agenda.

[Paul Stevens]

The silence from those who screamed the loudest about Lott is deafening on Dean.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You mean even more so than in 1860?

Are you suggesting the Civil War broke out over party lines, not geographical ones?

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
The silence from those who screamed the loudest about Lott is deafening on Dean.

Most of the people who screamed about Lott were Republicans or Libertarians. Including me. Democrats were mostly silent about Lott. No big deal, they already knew that all Republicans were vicious racists anyway.
Why am I silent about Dean's statement? Three reasons: 1) I don't give much of a dang what the Democrats have to say at this point of the campaign. 2) I REALLY don't give a curse for anything most of the people who are screaming say (aka Al (Tawana) Sharpton). 3) Dean is actually 100% correct, as Max Cleland and Roy Barnes (ex Georgia Senator and Governor as of the 2002 election) could tell you. The confederate bumper sticker vote can kill you in the South.
Dean's point was a serious one which most Democrats prefer to ignore: Unless and until the Democratic Party starts appealing to the working man again (down South and elsewhere) they are and will remain a minority political party. It's ironic to see an eastern elite liberal saying this but it's completely true.
[ November 06, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You mean even more so than in 1860?

Well possibly not, Tom. The present situation does remind me of the campaigns between 1828 and 1840, when the other party (whichever side you were on) was obviously consorting with the devil.
If Andrew Jackson were alive today and in the Democratic race there would be a dead candidate or two starched out. Jackson was a man who did not take insults lightly, and he had the dueling scars to prove it.....

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The Dems on the Senate Intelligence Committee (oxymoron?) got caught with a memo laying out their plans to use their positions to seek information to discredit the administration in order to help their party out during the 2004 Presidential election
Perfect! Now the Bush Administration has an excuse to sit on all intelligence data for reasons of "national security". Actually those involved will probably be treated as heroes (by other Dems of course). The accusation by one Republican of the politicizing of intelligence was quite funny.
I can't wait for the new Ann Coulter book: "Treasonous Treacherous Liberal Lies and the Lying Liberal Treacherous Treasoners that Lied Them: How The Left Are Bringing America's Last Christmas". Appearing just in time for the December rush I hope!

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
[qb]Perfect! Now the Bush Administration has an excuse to sit on all intelligence data for reasons of "national security".

Dude, it's intelligence data. It's not supposed to be made public. In fact, releasing classified data to unauthorized people (such as a reporter, the public, Senators not on the intelligence committee, etc...)is a felony. And yes, the reason not to make it public is national security. The public does not have the right to know.

[Jason Menard]

Everything is relative. Compared to the most powerful military on the earth, yes, I believe the number is small.
Is a terrorist not a terrorist until he/she physically commits an act of terrorism? The numbers of followers of Wahabism is expected to be in the millions.
We might understand different things by "global threat". My idea about "global threat" is it would put the existence of mankind as a whole in question. You perhaps mean that they are acting on global scale rather than regional?
A global threat is one that exists globally. But if you want to talk absolute worse case scenarios, what do you think we would do to the country that supported terrorists detonating a nuclear device (for example) on our soil?

[John Smith]

But if you want to talk absolute worse case scenarios, what do you think we would do to the country that supported terrorists detonating a nuclear device (for example) on our soil?
Is it just me, or someone else also thinks that the word "soil" doesn't go together with the concept of patriotism? It just kinda sounds dirty and doesn't resonate well with the word "our". It associates to me with "Someth' to drink?" as opposed to "Would you care for a beverage?".

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Dude, it's intelligence data. It's not supposed to be made public. In fact, releasing classified data to unauthorized people (such as a reporter, the public, Senators not on the intelligence committee, etc...)is a felony. And yes, the reason not to make it public is national security. The public does not have the right to know.
Dude, I meant intelligence data released to Congress. Besides it was a joke, I mean Bush wouldn't actually try and stop Congress from making informed decisions would he?

[HS Thomas]

Besides it was a joke, I mean Bush wouldn't actually try and stop Congress from making informed decisions would he?
No(shakes head). Never in a month of Sundays.
regards

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Is it just me, or someone else also thinks that the word "soil" doesn't go together with the concept of patriotism? It just kinda sounds dirty and doesn't resonate well with the word "our". It associates to me with "Someth' to drink?" as opposed to "Would you care for a beverage?".
You mean you don't like the word 'soil' because its too close to 'soiled'? Or something deeper?

[Joe King]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Besides it was a joke, I mean Bush wouldn't actually try and stop Congress from making informed decisions would he?
No(shakes head). Never in a month of Sundays.
regards

Bush wouldn't know an informed decision if it came out and hit him in the face.
Now tell the truth - has anyone here ever seen a politician who they honstly believe has never lied or deceived when making public statements? Their job is to lie to us, and out job is to see which liar we would prefer to do the lying.

[Timothy Chen Allen]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
You mean you don't like the word 'soil' because its too close to 'soiled'? Or something deeper?

Richard, Richard, Richard,
You and I both know that the only correct usage for the word "soiled" (correctly pronounced "salled") is the following:
"Goldangit, Ah done got s'damn jittery talkin to Mary Lu that Ah up and salled mah britches!"

[HS Thomas]

Bush wouldn't know an informed decision if it came out and hit him in the face.

Oh I don't know! As long as he has got the public behind him, who cares about the Congress.I was looking through a Calendar 2004 of Bushisms and the guy is quite endearing. I think Bush will survive any election held soon. Congress could step in if Bush does overstep the mark, especialy in Iraq. As in Nixon's case.
Pity our own head of secret government Blair doesn't have that many qualities that endear him to the pulic currently.His survival will depend on how/if any public inquiry into the WMD question turns out and who they choose as the next Tory candidate.
regards
[ November 07, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Jeroen Wenting]

Can you say "Watergate"?
It's exactly the same, except the current function of the people involved and their party affiliation.
Minor detail of course is that the leftists have the grace of the press and everything they do will be glossed over...

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
Minor detail of course is that the leftists have the grace of the press and everything they do will be glossed over...

I noticed this right off. I tuned in Fox News yesterday morning and they were spending a fair bit of time discussing this situation, but it seemed buried in some of the more liberal media sources.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
Can you say "Watergate"?
It's exactly the same, except the current function of the people involved and their party affiliation.
Minor detail of course is that the leftists have the grace of the press and everything they do will be glossed over...

I don't think you understand Watergate at all if you believe leaking information to discredit the current administration -- a common oractice on both sides of the aisle, mind you -- is the same as attempting to spy on the opposing party's strategic headquarters. There's the purported violation of protected information -- always good for alarming the public, especially one that believes either party would put its own interests ahead of public safety and actual national security -- and then there's attempting to undermine the election of leadership.
The "grace of the press" is a pretty subjective thing. I don't know any politically hepped-up individual up who believes the whole of the media is on "their side." So much of it is boring, repetitive, and shock-oriented jabber anyway. Sure sounds like it favors a conservative bent to me.
[ November 07, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
I glanced over a newspaper headline this morning that said Americans are more polarized as Democrats and Republicans than they ever were.

<by_no_means_anti_american/ >
May it be possible that americans are for whatever reason quite highly ideologized these days?
With ideologized, I mean:
- being straight (good, especially when hearing we_have_to_reform_Germany debate for 10 years or so).
- tendency to simplify and deny arguments from other side any serious value. Not argue with opponent, but destroy opponent.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

Are you suggesting the Civil War broke out over party lines, not geographical ones?

Are you suggesting that the difference between democrats and republicans is not related to geographic lines today?
North vs South in 1860.
Urban vs. Rural in 2003.
Look where Gore got his votes and where Bush got his votes.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Are you suggesting that the difference between democrats and republicans is not related to geographic lines today?

"Related" somehow, sure. Is it a clear and decisive divider? One word answer: Florida.
[ November 10, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Are you suggesting that the difference between democrats and republicans is not related to geographic lines today?
North vs South in 1860.
Urban vs. Rural in 2003.
Look where Gore got his votes and where Bush got his votes.

Some historical similarities to consider: The rural-urban split in the William Jennings Bryan era (1896-1908). And the poison partisanship of the early New Deal era (1933-1940). Bush seems to be hated as poisonously today as FDR was in the earlier era.
The major difference is that the partisan split today is so even, whereas the Republicans were definately in the majority in 1896 and the Democrats held one of the most decisive ascendencies of US History between 1933-1940...

[Frank Silbermann]

The greater the share of GNP controlled by government, the bigger the political stakes. The bigger the political stakes, the greater the desperation to win.
Actually, in my lifetime I've seen that conservatives have become much more accepting of liberal ideas and values (e.g. racial integration, tolerance of sexual immorality and perversion and for religious diversity).
Unfortunately, this this increased tolerance among the Right has been more than offset by sharp decreases in tolerance by the left (e.g. sharply decreased tolerance for guns and self-defense, for smoking, intolerance for criticisms of sexual immorality and perversion, and even intolerance for public displays of Christianity). The Left hates the Right because conservatives' retreat with respect to policy positions has been gradually slowing since 1980 -- to the point that a gradual, peaceful evolution towards socialism can no longer be taken for granted.
Conservative don't generally hate liberals save for those who exhibit signs of having been influenced by Marxism. One can hardly expect otherwise, since the Cold War was motivated by a recognition that Marxism was deeply evil.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
"Related" somehow, sure. Is it a clear and decisive divider? One word answer: Florida.

One word question: huh?
Explain to me why you think that parties were more divided along geographic borders in 1860 than they were in 2000.
But isn't it irrelevant? Since the parties were aligned North vs. South and that alignment led to the Civil War then wouldn't you say that the parties were more polarized in 1860?

[Michael Ernest]

TP: Explain to me why you think that parties were more divided along geographic borders in 1860 than they were in 2000.
ME: What I intended to say is that the political lines were defined more by geography in 1860 than they were by party affiliation. Today, I contend, geography is less of a factor.
TP: Since the parties were aligned North vs. South and that alignment led to the Civil War then wouldn't you say that the parties were more polarized in 1860?
I don't know that I agree with that premise. The major causes of the Civil War as I learned them had more to do with economic realities than party lines.

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
The greater the share of GNP controlled by government, the bigger the political stakes. The bigger the political stakes, the greater the desperation to win.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that this is necessarily borne out by the facts. The percentage of GDP disposed of in almost any EU country is higher than the percent disposed of by the US government. Sweden's percentage is probably the highest of any western democracy, and Swedish politics are famously polite. I'm pretty sure there isn't a much of a positive correlation between the public share of the GDP and civility in government, though. While German politics is civil, France and Italy also take a large part of the GNP, and neither of those country's politics could be described as civil......

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Unfortunately, this this increased tolerance among the Right has been more than offset by sharp decreases in tolerance by the left (e.g. sharply decreased tolerance for guns and self-defense, for smoking, intolerance for criticisms of sexual immorality and perversion, and even intolerance for public displays of Christianity). The Left hates the Right because conservatives' retreat with respect to policy positions has been gradually slowing since 1980 -- to the point that a gradual, peaceful evolution towards socialism can no longer be taken for granted.

While it's true that the civilty of the American left has declined since the 50's and early 60's let's not overlook what they did to Nixon.
I think there's a much simpler explanation for the Left's loss of civility. It is congruent with the loss of power of the Democratic Party. The Right had a similar episode of rage during the 30's after FDR and his Democrats were swept in by a landslide after 67 years of Republican hegenomy (broken only by Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson on the Presidential level).
I think it's very simple. Michael Moore asks what George Bush 'is doing with MY country?!!!'. He (and all Democrats) have the Right to Rule as a birthright, and their birthright is being taken away from them. Just as the Republican birthright was taken during the 30's.....
[ November 10, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[Thomas Paul]

ME: What I intended to say is that the political lines were defined more by geography in 1860 than they were by party affiliation. Today, I contend, geography is less of a factor.
TP: You can contend it but the evidence shows you are wrong. Take a look at the voting of the election in 2000. Gore won virtually every major urban area and lost virtually every rural area. But again, I don't see why you think that is significant. Don't you think Democrats in the North felt closer to Democrats in the South in 1860 than they did to Republicans? Or are you saying that Democrats in the North supported Lincoln and the Republicans and were anti-slavery?
ME:I don't know that I agree with that premise. The major causes of the Civil War as I learned them had more to do with economic realities than party lines.
TP: I'm not sure why you think that is significant. No one is saying the reason for polarization between the parties is because of the parties. The reason for the polarization of the parties then and now has to do with the beliefs of the people who are members of those parties. And I would suggest that the polarization was much worse in 1860 than it is today.
[ November 10, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
One word question: huh?
Explain to me why you think that parties were more divided along geographic borders in 1860 than they were in 2000.
But isn't it irrelevant? Since the parties were aligned North vs. South and that alignment led to the Civil War then wouldn't you say that the parties were more polarized in 1860?

The Whig party had dissolved after the election of 1848, leaving only the Democrats as a national party. The Democrats managed to stay together until 1860 by giving the South vrto power over it's Presidential nominee and also by finessing the slavery question. By 1860 the Northern Democrats realized that they could no longer by the South's cats-paw and remain in office. The Southern Democrats left the national convention and nominated their own candidate, splitting the Democratic vote.
There were 4 main parties in 1860. The Republicans took the bulk of the vote north of the Mason-Dixon line, the 'Consitutional Unionists' took the border states, and the Southern Democrats took the Deep South. Thus the Union was divided into as many as 3 or 4 chunks, mostly on sectional grounds.

[Michael Ernest]

Unfortunately, this this increased tolerance among the Right has been more than offset by sharp decreases in tolerance by the left (e.g. sharply decreased tolerance for guns and self-defense, for smoking, intolerance for criticisms of sexual immorality and perversion, and even intolerance for public displays of Christianity).
Mm hm. Give those liberals an inch and they'll take a mile.
The Left hates the Right because conservatives' retreat with respect to policy positions has been gradually slowing since 1980 -- to the point that a gradual, peaceful evolution towards socialism can no longer be taken for granted.
Liberals don't generally hate conservatives save for those who exhibit signs of creating a corporate-driven oligarchy that puts money and power in the hands of those who already have it.
Conservative don't generally hate liberals save for those who exhibit signs of having been influenced by Marxism. One can hardly expect otherwise, since the Cold War was motivated by a recognition that Marxism was deeply evil.
The Right hates the Left because liberals see through the conservative use of moral outrage as a smokescreen for otherwise naked power grabs domestically and abroad -- to the point where the relationship between political authority and personal credibility are no longer taken for granted.