//When I read that people who support Dean are "the big bleeding liberal heart of the party's nominating electorate, whose detestation of Bush is a witch's brew of hatred and condescension" I'd like to remind Baldy that it was his party, the cheap-labor republicans, who spent millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan witch-hunt after Mr. Clinton, and who kept their own "witch's brew" at a high boil.//
I think Will's point here is that that when the hysterical wing of any party takes over it is generally not positive. Does being hysterical work? How did being hysterical about Clinton work? After a huge House win in 94 and solid majority the Reps have lost seats ever since down where they only have hairs breath majorities on Congress. The impeachment thing pretty much backfired or at best was a wash for them. House and Senate are a toss up election to election. Bush v Gore was a statistical tie. Hysterical works about as well as a coin toss.
I'll admit I’m a Republican and never liked Clinton. In my opinion he is the most pathetic, immature, self idolizing man-boy ever to disgrace the office of the president. But that's a personal feeling. But an objective level I can admit he wasn’t the demon the hysterical wing of the Republican party made him out to be, the country didn’t go straight to hell during his 8 years – to the contrary nothing much actually changed. Just like after 12 years of Reagan/Bush. Life in America pretty much is a constant.
Most people including myself never bought into the anti Clinton hysterics like the Vince Foster murder conspiracies and the like. However some turned out probably true - I mean hey if Clinton as POTUS would get a blow from and intern in the Oval Office then as a Governor of small mostly rural state he probably was sneaking around getting blows in the 80’s in the back seats of State Trooper cars. Seriously though, throwing out wild-assed allegations might energize a base but most Americans have a lot more sense than that.
You guys on the hysterical wing of the Democrat party other hand really believe that Iraq was about nothing but oil and throwing a bone to Haliburton. Govt jackboots are going to kick down your door and drag you off or worse (wait a minute that was the other prez Big Bill , you know Waco, Elian, etc. Of course that was DIFFERENT, but if Bush ever did that…). The Bill of Rights and the Constitution shredded… Of course other than suspected terrorist being held in Cuba no one trend of this occurring they can only be hysterical in their predictions that it is/might/will happen.
Have a nice weekend
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I wasn't a big fan of Clinton myself. I grew up in a Democrat family. real democrat mind you, not this DLC bulldugan. The Republicans that went after Mr. Clinton were right that he was a liar, but they went after the wrong things: the sex, the whitewater (penny ante compared to Neil Bush's S&L dealings). It was the NAFTA, the tacit bowing to corporations on the environment and on worker rights.
"You guys on the hysterical wing of the Democrat party other hand really believe that Iraq was about nothing but oil and throwing a bone to Haliburton."
Oil was only part of it. There's also a lot of other geopolitics involved. the strength of the euro for example. There was an interesting article I saww months some months back (I can't remeber where and i can't vouch for its validity)that said that soemtime during the 90s, Saddam Hussein issued a diktat saying that the currency in which Iraqi oil would be bought and sold would be based on the euro. At the time, the US laughed because the euro was so weak, but over time the euro strengthened, and Saddam made out pretty well: well enough that other ME countriess began thinkign about trading in euros. The thrust of the article was this would prove disastrous for the US economy. I have no idea if this article is true or the work of a quack, but it seems like a valid enough proposition.
But even outside euro-dollar specualting, to say oil had nothing to do makes no sense in the most basic of terms. Think about it: we use the most oil of any other country in the world, but we have less of it. Iraq has lots of oil; if we control THAT oil, then we can cut out the middle man (or should I say the middle-eastern dictator). On its face it's actually a pretty good example of Realpolitik. Why should we be paying our money to radical islamists that want to kill us, if we can fairly easily take a chunk of their oil for ourselves; why rent when you can own? I think this is a fair question, but it was never one that was argued to the people. It was all lies about nuclear programs and biological death planes and releasing the dogs that have bees in their mouths (pardon the simpsons reference)etc etc.
As for halliburton, I know what bad fish smells like. When Halliburton, where Cheney was employed during his off-years, not only triples its business with the goverment during his tenure but gets a no-bid deal to control iraq's oilfields while he's vice-president, well yeah, I smell a rat.
"Govt jackboots are going to kick down your door and drag you off or worse (wait a minute that was the other prez Big Bill , you know Waco, Elian, etc. Of course that was DIFFERENT, but if Bush ever did that…)."
Oh please: Bush already HAS done that: haven't you heard about the deportations? Immigrants and peopel with middle eastern names held for weeks in crowded cells without charges, without access to lawyers? No-fly lists that the government has admitted target peace activists and leftist groups?
I'm sorry, you can say that Chicago al-Qaeda dude they picked up was bad news, but holding a citizen incommunicado with no right to a lawyer is a violation of our own rules. And before you say that it's a special case, I will remind you that John Walker Lindh had access to a lawyer and he ws fighting for the Taliban too.
"The Bill of Rights and the Constitution shredded… Of course other than suspected terrorist being held in Cuba no one trend of this occurring they can only be hysterical in their predictions that it is/might/will happen."
Well what else do you call USA PATRIOT, which allows the FBI to read your library and bookstore records, or to tap your phone and search your house with secret warrants that you're not allowed to see, other than "the bill of rights and the constitution shredded"?
I agree that when the hysterical wing of the party, of any party mind you, takes over, it is a bad thing. And look who's taken over the republican party. People like Tom Delay. People like Donald Rumsfeld, who Henry Kissinger once called "the most ruthless person I have ever met." The PNAC. John Ashcroft. In short, the hysterical wing of the party. rememebr jeffords jumped ship. snowe considered it, and the party's been worried about Chafee and Specter ever since.
the problem is that you right wing radicals (if you're going to call me a "hysterical democrat" than surely there will be tit-for-tat) is that you're willing to give up liberty for partisan gain.
have a nice weekend!
I think Will's point here is that that when the hysterical wing of any party takes over it is generally not positive. Does being hysterical work? How did being hysterical about Clinton work? After a huge House win in 94 and solid majority the Reps have lost seats ever since down where they only have hairs breath majorities on Congress. The impeachment thing pretty much backfired or at best was a wash for them. House and Senate are a toss up election to election. Bush v Gore was a statistical tie. Hysterical works about as well as a coin toss.
I'll admit I’m a Republican and never liked Clinton. In my opinion he is the most pathetic, immature, self idolizing man-boy ever to disgrace the office of the president. But that's a personal feeling. But an objective level I can admit he wasn’t the demon the hysterical wing of the Republican party made him out to be, the country didn’t go straight to hell during his 8 years – to the contrary nothing much actually changed. Just like after 12 years of Reagan/Bush. Life in America pretty much is a constant.
Most people including myself never bought into the anti Clinton hysterics like the Vince Foster murder conspiracies and the like. However some turned out probably true - I mean hey if Clinton as POTUS would get a blow from and intern in the Oval Office then as a Governor of small mostly rural state he probably was sneaking around getting blows in the 80’s in the back seats of State Trooper cars. Seriously though, throwing out wild-assed allegations might energize a base but most Americans have a lot more sense than that.
You guys on the hysterical wing of the Democrat party other hand really believe that Iraq was about nothing but oil and throwing a bone to Haliburton. Govt jackboots are going to kick down your door and drag you off or worse (wait a minute that was the other prez Big Bill , you know Waco, Elian, etc. Of course that was DIFFERENT, but if Bush ever did that…). The Bill of Rights and the Constitution shredded… Of course other than suspected terrorist being held in Cuba no one trend of this occurring they can only be hysterical in their predictions that it is/might/will happen.
Have a nice weekend
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I wasn't a big fan of Clinton myself. I grew up in a Democrat family. real democrat mind you, not this DLC bulldugan. The Republicans that went after Mr. Clinton were right that he was a liar, but they went after the wrong things: the sex, the whitewater (penny ante compared to Neil Bush's S&L dealings). It was the NAFTA, the tacit bowing to corporations on the environment and on worker rights.
"You guys on the hysterical wing of the Democrat party other hand really believe that Iraq was about nothing but oil and throwing a bone to Haliburton."
Oil was only part of it. There's also a lot of other geopolitics involved. the strength of the euro for example. There was an interesting article I saww months some months back (I can't remeber where and i can't vouch for its validity)that said that soemtime during the 90s, Saddam Hussein issued a diktat saying that the currency in which Iraqi oil would be bought and sold would be based on the euro. At the time, the US laughed because the euro was so weak, but over time the euro strengthened, and Saddam made out pretty well: well enough that other ME countriess began thinkign about trading in euros. The thrust of the article was this would prove disastrous for the US economy. I have no idea if this article is true or the work of a quack, but it seems like a valid enough proposition.
But even outside euro-dollar specualting, to say oil had nothing to do makes no sense in the most basic of terms. Think about it: we use the most oil of any other country in the world, but we have less of it. Iraq has lots of oil; if we control THAT oil, then we can cut out the middle man (or should I say the middle-eastern dictator). On its face it's actually a pretty good example of Realpolitik. Why should we be paying our money to radical islamists that want to kill us, if we can fairly easily take a chunk of their oil for ourselves; why rent when you can own? I think this is a fair question, but it was never one that was argued to the people. It was all lies about nuclear programs and biological death planes and releasing the dogs that have bees in their mouths (pardon the simpsons reference)etc etc.
As for halliburton, I know what bad fish smells like. When Halliburton, where Cheney was employed during his off-years, not only triples its business with the goverment during his tenure but gets a no-bid deal to control iraq's oilfields while he's vice-president, well yeah, I smell a rat.
"Govt jackboots are going to kick down your door and drag you off or worse (wait a minute that was the other prez Big Bill , you know Waco, Elian, etc. Of course that was DIFFERENT, but if Bush ever did that…)."
Oh please: Bush already HAS done that: haven't you heard about the deportations? Immigrants and peopel with middle eastern names held for weeks in crowded cells without charges, without access to lawyers? No-fly lists that the government has admitted target peace activists and leftist groups?
I'm sorry, you can say that Chicago al-Qaeda dude they picked up was bad news, but holding a citizen incommunicado with no right to a lawyer is a violation of our own rules. And before you say that it's a special case, I will remind you that John Walker Lindh had access to a lawyer and he ws fighting for the Taliban too.
"The Bill of Rights and the Constitution shredded… Of course other than suspected terrorist being held in Cuba no one trend of this occurring they can only be hysterical in their predictions that it is/might/will happen."
Well what else do you call USA PATRIOT, which allows the FBI to read your library and bookstore records, or to tap your phone and search your house with secret warrants that you're not allowed to see, other than "the bill of rights and the constitution shredded"?
I agree that when the hysterical wing of the party, of any party mind you, takes over, it is a bad thing. And look who's taken over the republican party. People like Tom Delay. People like Donald Rumsfeld, who Henry Kissinger once called "the most ruthless person I have ever met." The PNAC. John Ashcroft. In short, the hysterical wing of the party. rememebr jeffords jumped ship. snowe considered it, and the party's been worried about Chafee and Specter ever since.
the problem is that you right wing radicals (if you're going to call me a "hysterical democrat" than surely there will be tit-for-tat) is that you're willing to give up liberty for partisan gain.
have a nice weekend!
<< Home