OT: Good editorial

[Merryprankster]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13115-2003May19.html

EJ Dionne did a GREAT job in this editorial. Great analysis! I was listening to the Kerry bit he discussed and wow was it a good one. Kerry will be the only viable Democratic candidate for a variety of reasons and I do hope the DNP is smart enough to pick him.

There is a strong vein of dissatisfaction in a great deal of the American public with current administration policy. From a marketing perspective, the trick is to tap into that vein without appearing unpatriotic, which is easy to do in our present environment. Although his voting record has received less than stellar ratings from defense advocacy groups, Kerry's record as a war vet will drastically mitigate "soft on terrorism," attacks and his "patriotism" is without question. Other candidates will be unlikely to get traction with voters. It would be just too easy to cast them in the role of the anti-American softie, and that's exactly how the Bush re-election campaign is going to do it--"if you're against the admin, you're against America." Kerry is insulated from that.

I especially like Dionne's argument that current political battles are over libertarianism vs communalism. I detect a distinctly Kennedy-esque streak in Kerry's rhetoric and if he can parse his vision in "patriotic" rhetoric, then he's got a good chance of winning this possible match-up.

As long as he doesn't have any Kennedy-esque like appetites, sexual or otherwise, we should be looking good in 2004. I'd like to see Sen Graham as a possible running mate, to further strengthen the defense against "soft on terrorism," but that won't happen--the Dems won't give up two senate seats for a presidential run!

Most importantly, he'd mandate civics courses in public education. This is one of my pet issues. It's about time!! :D

[Black Jack]

Mr. Kerry is their best guy at this time. But Kerry's face makes baby jesus cry.

Dude is pug-fuggly

I don't think I would EVER vote democratic. Though I am sure Bush and the GOP is going to make some loyal N.R.A republicans ****ed if he extends the unconsititional and totaly bs "Assualt Weapons Ban" put together by Clinton in 94 which is up now for renew.

[Taomonkey]

I'm voting for the REV. AL SHARPTON
My new plan, vote for the person the political parties want the least and then watch the reality of political power come out.

DNC - We love blacks, we believe in equality of balcks in all offices just not Republican blacks or not blacks who speak thier mind like Rev. AL, oh and we dont like blacks who like to rhyme.

RNC - We love christians, all christians, we love blacks, but not Democratic Blacks like Rev. AL and that rainbow push guy who is always rhyming. Those black preachers are way out there on the left.

Reality is DNC loves any democrat who speaks the party line

RNC loves any republican who stays in step with teh party line.

Free thinkers, independents, libertarians, ok lets pretend to like them to get their votes, after all if you dont vote for us your just throwing away your vote. If you dont vote for our guy, you can get up real early on Sunday, eat a nice big breakfast, then go out in your backyard and FRUCK YOURSELF

[Black Jack]

Only in a grand Constitutional Republic like ours would ever a fat bigoted ******* like Sharpton be able to get up on a stage.

I would pay money to see him throw down some cardboard and breakdance a little though.

[ewallace]

Personally I'd like to see Don King make a run at it.

[Ford Prefect]

Being one of Kerry's constituents, I say that it is extremely sad that Kerry is the "best" man in the Democratic party to go against GW. I've never voted Republican, but I may have to if it comes down to a choice between the two. Maybe I can go third party again. Oh the joy.

[Budokan]

"But Kerry's face makes baby jesus cry."

LOL!

And I agree that Dionne is one of the better politcal analysts out there...not afraid to say it like it is rather than be a shill for any particular party...as so many of the so called "analysts" are.

Frankly, I'm sanguine about whether or not that toadstool we in the White House will allow this country to have a free election in 2004. He's not much on free elections as we learned in 2000. Hm. Maybe we'll get lucky and have Anarchy -- or simply have Cheyney come out from behind the curtain and say out loud what we've all known for the past three years: Shrub is a figurehead and Cheyney's been running the country with the rest of the Cabal: Wolfowitz, Rove, Kristol, et al. That would be a nice refreshing change from the Republicans, that bit of open honesty.

Nah. That's expecting way too much from any politician.

[Merryprankster]

Frankly, I'm sanguine about whether or not that toadstool we in the White House will allow this country to have a free election in 2004. He's not much on free elections as we learned in 2000.

You can't possibly believe this. Our system is largely transparent and free from TRUE corruption. Nothing like the Boss Tweed days! :) Of course, there will always be fraud. Nature of the beast.

LOL at Black Jack. Funny stuff, and pretty much true.

[Black Jack]

Budokan come on bro you are WAY to smart to believe in that non-free election myth of 2000.

You know what the electoral college was created for and its purpose.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I especially like Dionne's argument that current political battles are over libertarianism vs communalism.

As a non-American rightist, one of the things that has always bothered me is that the American conservatives have some patently unconservative values owing to their protestant roots*, and the American libertarians lack the fundamental emphasis on community present in non-American grassroots rightists.

This perspection could, of course, be a function of looking in from the outside, on a number of levels; but it seems to me that there is no good home for the "true" conservative in American politics.

It looks like these areas might be the conflict points for future debates in American politics.

*And don't even get me started on the neoconservatives.


I detect a distinctly Kennedy-esque streak in Kerry's rhetoric and if he can parse his vision in "patriotic" rhetoric, then he's got a good chance of winning this possible match-up.

I think it's unfortunate that one side "playing the patriotic card," which has widely been critisized, is now being countered by the other side doing the same. But I guess that's the problem with populism to begin with...

[Christopher M]

Shrub is a figurehead and Cheyney's been running the country with the rest of the Cabal: Wolfowitz, Rove, Kristol, et al.

The neocons have power only so far as Bush gives it to them, not the other way around. Bush is neither a neocon, nor a neocon figurehead, as is patently obvious by the policies he supports that are fundamentally opposed to neocon agenda: tax cuts, minimal nation building and long-term foreign presence, relative laxness on Syria, and the roadmap for Israeli-Palestine peace.

This is all entirely overt: the neocons have publically criticized Bush's military budget and ballistic missile defense program, among other things.

[rogue]

I love Theresa Heinz (whose first husband, Senator John Heinz (R-PA), died in a plane crash and left her his ketchup fortune) who adds a Billy Carteresque quality to it all.

[tsunami surfer]

If you cant handle punching a ballot card you dont deserve to have your vote count.

[Serpent]

I think you all should let Mickey Mouse run the country for a while and see what happens.

Oh, wait a minute, that's what you are doing.

Did you hear that Mickey Mouse got a George W Bush watch for his birthday this year?

[joedoe]

LOL :D

Well, we have Donald Duck running ours. Or is it Goofy? :D

[Serpent]

I'm not sure. Which Disney character spends all his time with his tongue stuck in Mickey Mouse's arse?

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Serpent
I'm not sure. Which Disney character spends all his time with his tongue stuck in Mickey Mouse's arse?

Minnie? No, they weren't into kinky stuff. Pluto? No, too innocent. Must be either Donald or Goofy. :D

[Serpent]

Hmmm. A stupid looking duck that no one can understand when he speaks. Not a bad description of our Johnny.

Mind you, Pluto is a mindless dog with no understanding of his surroundings or the trouble he's getting in. Also not a bad description.

*shrug*

[joedoe]

He really is a cross between Donald and Goofy I think.

[Black Jack]

Nothing like taking a look at the posts in the morning and seeing the same old same old from the same old jack@ss.

[ZIM]

Can't get the link to work for me, MP- it asks for account numbers and stuff...??

WRT Neocons- they aren't conservatives, but radicals- they want to change everything... doesn't matter what they want to change it to, they're still radicals.

I was watching a discussion with Niall Fergusson [sp?] who wrote some book on the Brit Empire which compared it to the US's Empire... surprise was he is a conservative who basically approves of it all, but cautioned that the USa needs to add in a dedicated Civil Service bureau [a la the Brit and Indian civil service] to maintain it and secure it, rather than to go in all gangbusters and walk away [as in Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, etc.].

So this leaves me wondering: will the Dems embrace a vision of Empire to further their aims? Would the Reps come right out and say, "heck yeah, its an Empire- here's the plan"? Or will a third party suit that agenda better?

That is, if you buy the premise...;) :p I'm certainly not doing a good job explaining it...

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
WRT Neocons- they aren't conservatives, but radicals

Neocons, neither neo nor cons, discuss among yourselves.


will the Dems embrace a vision of Empire to further their aims? Would the Reps come right out and say, "heck yeah, its an Empire- here's the plan"?

I think to a large extent, neocons are Dems who've fervently embraced a specific concept of empire, even though they're using the Republican party as a vehicle.

One of the big differences between Bush's conservatism and Wolfowitz, et al's neoconservatism is that the former, in a sense, wants to "go in all gangbusters and walk away", whereas the latter supports continued US foreign presence in a big way - basically an empire.

On a related note, however, I don't think Bush's gangbusterism is the same thing we've seen previously. In the past, we've seen alot of power manipulation and war-by-proxies. While alot of people criticize Bush's emphasis on protecting oil resources in Iraq, it seems to me that this is an obvious priority for Bush's model of "responsable gangbusterism": the way to responsably avoid long-term interests in Iraq is to give them the tools to build their own nation. One of the way's Iraq is fortunate, contra many countries in similar situations, is that they are ideally set up to do this - thanks to their oil.

[Merryprankster]

Just wanted to remind everybody who might have forgotten:

Even though we have greater vested interest in oil in Nigeria, and even though we have a legitimate excuse to exercise humanitarian assistance there, and even though France and Russia have the greatest vested interest in oil in Iraq, this war was ALL about OIL for the United States. ;)


CM,

I agree that it's a shame about appealing to patriotism, but in a time like this, it's going to happen... and only Kerry has the credentials to fight it. Can you imagine Lieberman? Forget it.

I offer this quotation--from whence, I cannot remember--

"In this day and age, moderates are the true conservatives."

[Taomonkey]

"You know what the electoral college was created for and its purpose."

Yes, to make sure a thea New York, California, and Illinois, didnt elect the president for the rest of the country.

As for this steeling the election, mind you I didnt vote for Bush, remember the county by count results of the election, and how about 95% was in the red (Bush) and only about 5% in the blue (Gore).

Thats our system of government, a Democratic Representative form, not a pure democracy, cry all you want to, it works. We get the government we deserve, both parties keep puttin up the same old party liners. The Dems would rather stand idolly by and see the country go to hell in a hand basket, just so they could say, see,,,see what republicans do.

[Taomonkey]

Merryprankster

Fact is this, the white world, USA, EU, former USSR, UN etc. dont give a crap about Africa, any of Africa. Never forget the UN's great success in Rowanda.

[Merryprankster]

"You know what the electoral college was created for and its purpose."

Yes, to make sure a thea New York, California, and Illinois, didnt elect the president for the rest of the country.



Mostly, YUP! No electoral college means ignoring underpopulated regions completely. Who cares about South Dakota issues or Upper Peninsula Michigan? No votes there--NYC, LA, Chicago--ahhhh... NOW we're talking!

[Merryprankster]

Taomonkey--different argument altogether!

My point is that Nigeria would have been a much easier sell than Iraq. So if these leaders are smart enough to concoct national/global conspiracy but not smart enough to recognize that Nigeria was simpler to do? I don't buy it.

[Taomonkey]

Problem with Nigera is no great advarsary, no emeny to put their heads on a stick.

The easiest wars to fire up are the ones smoldering from the past,

Christians vs. muslims vs. Jews allways a good fuel.

I actually heard my boss the other day say "What we need to do in go in there and convert all those Muslims to Christianity"

Like that worked so well in the past.

The Nigerian people would most likely really cheer in the streets for some help and a little food, but they are quite less likely to rise up against the infidels a few weeks later.

Hang on people this war is just gettin started. To quote James Brown "We Gotta long way to go here, huh hauaeeeghh"

[Taomonkey]

just for ****s and giggles

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32606

[Merryprankster]

Keeeee-RIST!

Not another Bildersburg thing!

Anyway, I disagree Tao--the UN LOVES to do humanitarian intervention. They get stiff wood from it. I think it would have been an easy sell. Especially since TotalElfina--a major European Oil conglomerate, also has huge interests there.

[Black Jack]

The only thing more scary than the dreaded Bilderburg group is being bushwacked by a drunk Ron Jeremy hiding nude in your kitchen pantry.

[Taomonkey]

Arrrg,, Thats gonna replace the whale in my nightmare

[Merryprankster]

True.

[Black Jack]

Don't get me wrong I respect the power of the hedgehog. I would cover my sac in Jiffy peanut butter and let my favorite dog gnaw off my left testicle for a third leg like that. In homage I would stick fight with it to decadent 70's hard rock music.

[ZIM]

We'd never go into Nigeria because we don't have any SINGLE villian to point the blame at. Besides, the Media can't pronounce any of the names nohow, and we all know who really owns the world at present, so y'all just sit down and let FOX News handle it fer ya. ;)



One of the big differences between Bush's conservatism and Wolfowitz, et al's neoconservatism is that the former, in a sense, wants to "go in all gangbusters and walk away", whereas the latter supports continued US foreign presence in a big way - basically an empire. Yessss.... the author [Niall F.] was talking about that... said that the US military has by and large accepted it's role as empire-builders.. the rest of the gov't has not, however.

[his vision of empire was of the 13 colonies expanded... so California is our Ireland. heheheh In a real sense, he is correct. We are now a military presence in 120 countries, I hear]

...but we haven't done the necessary administrative work was the point. A corps of dedicated nation-builders, esp. with a decent non-sectarian reputation, would go a long way towards stabilizing the regions taken.

BTW, I should say I don't support this vision, but I don't mind entertaining it as a possibility. ah! found the amazon listing. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465023282/ref=pd_sim_books_1/104-7554063-4050331?v=glance&s=books)

Anyway, back to the topic... is this a stance that should be considered? Does it co=opt the Republican stance?

OT: david letterman last nite: Top ten signs that Ari fliescher doesn't give a **** anymore- number 10: he only takes questions from Kung Fu Magazine!!

:D

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Taomonkey
The easiest wars to fire up are the ones smoldering from the past,

Christians vs. muslims vs. Jews allways a good fuel.

So what does this have to do with Iraq?

Remember, Iraq was our ally against [fundamentalist] Islam.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
Anyway, back to the topic... is this a stance that should be considered? Does it co=opt the Republican stance?

In alot of ways it has co-opted the Republican stance, insofar as the neoconservative "infiltration" of the Republican party has been successfull, particarly among the majority of people (who, for instance, have never heard of Strauss).

It it a stance which should be considered? Sure.

Considered and found lacking. I'm not a fan of big government in any form; and particularly not of big military. I'm not a fan of the extreme populism characteristic of Straussians/neocons; nor of their "pet interests" in foreign policy. I'm resolutely not a fan of the interpretation of globalization which follows the path of the supernationals (rather: I support globalization as openness between autonomous nationals).


A corps of dedicated nation-builders.. would go a long way towards stabilizing the regions taken.

In the short term, yes. But in the long term? I don't think so. Long term stability comes from giving people the tools and environment to progress in their own way, not in building them a nation which emulates our way.

We've allready seen this repeatedly in history: in no more topical a location, for instance, than Iraq itself (consider how the post-WW "nation-building" here contributed to the present problems).

[ZIM]

We've allready seen this repeatedly in history: in no more topical a location, for instance, than Iraq itself (consider how the post-WW "nation-building" here contributed to the present problems). We might also pause to consider Liberia, founded by the USA, with principles of governance taken directly from us, down to the pledge of allegiance. The center does not hold.

This, BTW, is not a 'dig' in any way... I agree with the autonomous interaction of soveriegn states idea, just that I recognise this always means that substantial disagreement will ever ensue. There is no solving for that, unless one takes it all for oneself.

This, of course, presents other problems.

Anyhow, WAY off the track here. Anybody know how to get into MP's link??? :D

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
We might also pause to consider Liberia, founded by the USA, with principles of governance taken directly from us, down to the pledge of allegiance. The center does not hold.

Do you mean that Liberia is a success story for this method?


I agree with the autonomous interaction of soveriegn states idea, just that I recognise this always means that substantial disagreement will ever ensue.

Hopefully! What's wrong with disagreement?


Anybody know how to get into MP's link?

Works for me. Sorry. :(

[tsunami surfer]

only a guy as ugly as the hedgehog could get that much poon and get paid for it!!! I hope I can still skrog like that when I am his age and not need viagra!!!:p

[Budokan]

"The only thing more scary than the dreaded Bilderburg group is being bushwacked by a drunk Ron Jeremy hiding nude in your kitchen pantry."

LOL!

:D

[ZIM]

Oh well, until There's a way..


Do you mean that Liberia is a success story for this method? No, indeed! You can import whatever principles you like-- but maybe it won't work. Whatever government is in place is in power because it comes from that culture... is that good? Is it better to have a local dictator [the devil you know] or a foriegn one? "Freedom" does not provide stability, and I often think that's just what anyone wants in many parts of the World. They just want to stop seeing their kids die in front of them, thats all. or for a start, anyhow.
Hopefully! What's wrong with disagreement? Nothing. What's wrong with war?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
No, indeed! You can import whatever principles you like-- but maybe it won't work. Whatever government is in place is in power because it comes from that culture... is that good? Is it better to have a local dictator [the devil you know] or a foriegn one?
Right... isn't that what I said in the first place? :D


Nothing. What's wrong with war?
Everything. I don't see your argument here.

[ZIM]

Everything. I don't see your argument here. That's becoz the jist of the argument is getting off course, for whatever little it was worth to begin with. :D Essentially, I was wondering how/if the USA should go about administrating an Empire it will not publicly 'own up' to having.

If we're going to invade whatever countries [remember, during the war commentators were saying, 'yes we have the right, yes we are the cops for the world, yes it is our duty'] the walk away OR appoint cronies, toadies, butlickers, and familiars to run the show, then it looks from here that we'll just be repeating the whole game in another 10 years.

Like it seems we've done before. I do not think the Dems, Reps, or etc. will change that. Neocons, libertarians, and those paleolithic cons who aren't being listened to... those are the movements that are gaining groundswell... and all of them are Rightist. Interesting? Boring? How will the Left rebuild? Unlike some, I consider them necessary, if always fractured.

[norther practitioner]

Freedom involves education in some regards, some people unfortunately don't know whats best for them, or don't realize if it not the best for them it still might be the best for the masses. That is why when some governments were put in place they used devices to make sure that someone "educated" made the final decision, educated being a subjective term obviously..... Some places wouldn't work too well right off the bat with a democracy... go figure.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
remember, during the war commentators were saying, 'yes we have the right, yes we are the cops for the world, yes it is our duty'

I don't think the war had anything to do with that, nor do I accept it as a legitimate reason, so I guess it's kind of a moot point for me.


If we're going to invade whatever countries the walk away OR appoint cronies, toadies, butlickers, and familiars to run the show, then it looks from here that we'll just be repeating the whole game in another 10 years.

I guess, unlike you, I see what's happening now as fundamentally different than anything that's been done before, at least if Shrub has his way.


Neocons, libertarians, and those paleolithic cons who aren't being listened to... those are the movements that are gaining groundswell... and all of them are Rightist.

Neocons aren't rightist, and they're the only one of those movements with any power. Maybe that in itself answers how the left will rebuild?

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Nothing like taking a look at the posts in the morning and seeing the same old same old from the same old jack@ss.

I could say the exact same thing about you.