Sixteen years is plenty of time for even dumb people to learn just about anything they need to, especially when the difference between winning and losing is usually a matter of life or death, professionally, in the business of big-time politics. It is a question of enlightened self-interest -- learn quick or die.
But there are exceptions, as always, like Joan of Arc, Lyndon LaRouche, and even Gary Hart -- which is not really fair in Gary's case; it was not that he couldn't learn, he just had different priorities. They jeered and called him crazy when he quit, but polls taken immedieately after the election had him as the Demo front-runner for 1992.
It was the kind of news that nobody wants to hear, like having your pre-marriage blood test handed back to you in a lead bag or getting a job as the next sherrif of Sicily ... Richard Nixon might handle a horror like that , or maybe William Burroughs, but no other names come to mind. Some things are too ugly to even gossip about.
Gary was unavailable for comment on the '92 poll, and his former campaign manager, Bill Dixon, has long since moved to Bangkok. Other Democrats wept openly at the news, but most just stared blankly. "The front-runner for '92?" one asked. "Are you crazy? I'd rather have a truckload of pig entrails dumped in my front yard by some of those tattooed guys from Yakuza."
It is an ancient and honorable method of colleting debts in Japan, but not yet chic in this country. The Yakuza, however, are said to be infiltrating American cities at a rate that will soon make them the second most powerful political organization in this nation, behind only the Republican Party.
The Mafia ranks No. 3 -- followed by the Roman Catholic Church, the IRS, the U.S. Congress, and American Marijuana Growers' Association.
Indeed. There are many rooms in the mansion. James Angelton said that back when the CIA was still a ranking power. ...
The Democratic Party is not even listed in the top twenty, despite a number four ranking two years ago. It was a shocking plunge.
"The Democrats shouldn't even be listed in the top forty," said political analyst Harold Conrad. "They have become the party of losers."
That is probably wishful thinking -- but at ten to one it might float, even in Las Vegas. The last time a major political party self-destructed was in 1853, when the Whigs went belly-up despite the leadership of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Quincy Adams. They had ceased to stand for anything except pure politics.
"They refused to learn," said Conrad. "they became the New Dumb, and then they died."
If that is the only issue, the Democrats appear to be doomed. They have not learned anything about presidential politics since 1960, and have lost five out of the last six elections despite a consistently powerful showing in state and local elections. While Dukakis lost in forty states, the Democratic Party added to its control of Congress with a net gain of five seats in the House and two in the Senate.
The dumb are never with us for long, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Republicans learn faster than Democrats. ... Consider the crude learning experience that fell like a huge snake around the neck of the national Republican Party in 1964, when they were forced to go public as the party of Dumb Brutes and Rich People, and then see themselves flogged in the general election by 16 million votes.
When Goldwater was forced to wallow in the horror of public defeat, many experts said he was not wallowing alone, that the whole Republican Party was wallowing with him. The GOP was doomed, like the Whigs, to a cheap and meaningless fate.
But not for long. Four years later, Richard Nixon came back from the dead and ran the Democrats out of power with a 500,000 vote victory over the wretched arch-liberal, Hubert Humphrey. ...
It was 1969 -- the Death Year -- and this time it was Democrats who ran amok. If the campaign had been conducted under the Rules of War -- which it was: a civil war -- thousands of hate-crazy young Democrats would have been tortured to death by their own kind, or killed in the streets like wild animals. Both Johnson and Humphrey would have been executed for treason.
We were all crazy, that year, and many people developed aggressive attitudes. When I packed my bags for Chicago, there was nothing unusual about including a Bell motorcycle helmet, yellow ski goggles, a new pair of Chuck Taylors All-Stars, and a short billy-club. Packing for Chicago was like taking off for Club Med.
The Democratic Party has never recovered from that convention. It is a wound that still festers, and these people are not quite healers. They have blown five out of six presidential elections since then, and their only victory came after a criminal Republican president was dragged out of the White House in a frenzy of shame.
It was no big trick to beat Gerald Ford in 1976. He was clearly Nixon's creature, and the GOP was massively disgraced. It was a friendly preacher from Georgia against a gang of crooks. ... And even then Carter blew a big lead and won by only two points.
Four years later he was crushed by Ronald Reagan, a goofy version of Goldwater, who ruled for two terms and then anointed his successor while Democrats embarrassed themselves once again.
This is so much more true today. Clinton seemed to revive the party a bit. But this election should have been a sweep-in for Democrats. Possibly the worst President in history, and Kerry was all the Dems could come up with to run against him. Utterly pathetic.
Why? The reason is obvious. Pretty much everyone who voted for Kerry did so only because he wasn’t Bush. That’s what I’m guessing anyway. Democrats have sunk into a meaningless existence. Their only strength is that they are not Republicans.
It benefits the Republicans for the Democrats to be around man. If the only visible alternative to the Neocon Regime is this transparent group of slimeballs, it’s no wonder the Neocons can retain power. This should have stopped with Reagan. I don’t know how this Regime lasted 5 minutes in a country that supposedly stands against all forms of tyranny.
It’s so ironic it’s almost funny.
Democrats: for the sake of your country, just give it up. It’s time for someone else to step up oust the Neocons. You had your shot, and you have utterly failed.
Dekka00 said this in post #1 : Democrats have sunk into a meaningless existence. Their only strength is that they are not Republicans.
If the Democrats had actually put forward a politician with charm and wit, they would have walked it, ie, another guy like Clinton.
As a last resort the Dems could always do the equivalent of what Blair did so successfully in Britain and change his party into the opposition. He out-conservatived the conservatives. Still his own party hates him but they like the winning!
Ten years from now, no-one will bother to vote because they parties will be indistinguishable. Maybe not even ten years. Maybe it's already happened, lets face it, is anyone actually going to change the abortion laws?? But if it get the vote...
If the Democrats had actually put forward a politician with charm and wit, they would have walked it, ie, another guy like Clinton.
H@ts....this would be the one thing that you and I would definitely agree on.
I do think if they had a guy comparable to Clinton, the dems would have come ahead....BUT...also, they needed a man like this to have a better understanding of the issues in this country and able to say what his plans were for Iraq and other such things (ie healthcare, taxes, etc)...Kerry lost on that. He couldnt do those things.
He left people hanging and guessing as to what he would do once in office...thats a scary thought to not know the intentions of a man wanting to hold the highest office.
Dekka is right...many people voted for him because he wasnt Bush....I find that NOT a reason to vote for a president.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
From an objective point of view, this year’s presidential election should not be a difficult choice. The contrast in records of the two candidates could hardly be more dramatic.
National Security:
Bush:
On September 11, 2001, America was attacked. President Bush promptly declared war on the terrorists (and the rogue regimes which harbor them), and took the fight to the enemy. In so doing, he assembled a coalition of thirty nations willing to contribute their efforts to the task. As a result, in an amazingly short time, he accomplished four major victories with regard to: (1) Afghanistan, (2) Iraq, (3) Libya, and (4) Al Qaeda. In Afghanistan and Iraq, two rogue (terrorist-harboring) regimes were overthrown and replaced with democracies friendly to America In Libya, a third such regime was influenced by the capture of Saddam to disclose and give up its weapons of mass destruction, and to cooperate with the United States. Meanwhile, 75% of Al Qaeda leadership was killed or captured. We are also now getting more cooperation against Al Qaeda from Moslem countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The development most feared by the terrorists is the arrival of free market democracy in the Middle East. In Afghanistan free elections (including women as voters) were held in October, 2004. In Iraq economic activity is rapidly increasing and preparations are well underway for such elections in January, 2005.
Kerry:
During his undistinguished Senatorial career (with little attention to duties, and only 8 Kerry bills becoming law*), Kerry has faithfully served the interests of America’s enemies (communist North Vietnam, Sandinista Nicaragua, communist China, and now terrorist Iran), but never those of the U.S. So far Kerry's only "success" (prior to becoming a senator) has been to help the communist enemy defeat his own country (the United States) and enslave Vietnam (1970). His subsequent attempt to similarly help the communists advance in Central America (i.e., the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua and the FMLN in El Salvador) suffered a major setback when the Nicaraguan people voted the Sandinistas out of office (1990). Kerry voted against the 1991 U.N. backed effort to oust Saddam from Kuwait. Kerry's position would have left Saddam today not only in Iraq, but also in Kuwait and probably Saudi Arabia. Although Kerry did vote in favor of sending troops into Iraq, he voted against arming and equipping them. This would have resulted not only in our defeat, but also in vastly increased casualties and fatalities among our troops. Now working on behalf of the terrorist regime in Iran which is seeking to develop a nuclear bomb, Kerry advocates giving that regime nuclear material to use against us. At the same time Kerry would unilaterally disarm America’s research into its own defensive “bunker busting” bombs. While requiring that America pass a “global test” in order to take pre-emptive action to defend itself against a growing threat, Kerry is also attempting (via reverse diplomacy) to undermine America's anti-terrorist coalition. However, Kerry suffered a key defeat in Australia when (despite the best efforts of Kerry's sister) America's ally John Howard was re-elected (2004).
--------------------------
* Frank Salvato notes that "John Kerry has been practically non-existent in the US Senate throughout his career," and that "[t]o date, only eight pieces of legislation bear his name, many being ceremonial in nature. For the eight years Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee he was absent 76% of the time." (“Time to Spotlight Kerry's Attendance Record” by Frank Salvato, Townhall.com, October 8, 2004.)
“Kerry: U.S. should've given nuclear fuel to Iran,” WorldNetDaily.com, October 2, 2004.
Bush:
In January, 2001, President Bush inherited a declining economy from the taxation-prone Clinton Administration. This was followed by the September 11, 2001 attack on America which also had a major adverse economic impact. Nevertheless, as a direct result of the Bush tax cuts, the U.S. economy is now growing at the fastest pace in the industrialized world. Our growth rate of 5.1% since the 2003 tax cuts were enacted is substantially higher than that of our competitors, and the standard projection of 4.5% growth for next year is almost twice the rate of growth that Europe is expected to achieve, constituting the highest rate of U.S. growth since the Reagan years. Overall economic growth is running at a faster rate than in 1996 when Clinton was re-elected. The household survey reveals that 1.69 million more people are employed today than when Bush first took office. This influx of new job entrants has decreased the unemployment rate to 5.4 percent, equaling the lowest rate (1996) in the preceding 30 years. This rate is among the lowest of all our industrial competitors and compares favorably with a jobless rate of 8% on average in Europe. Alan Greenspan has observed that these are well-paying jobs. In addition, household wealth is up 11.1 percent, hitting a record high of $45.9 trillion, and inflation-adjusted consumer spending is up 3.6 percent. According to 368 of the nation's leading economists (including six Nobel laureates, such as this year’s winner Edward C. Prescott), “President Bush's focus on raising long-term growth using well-timed tax cuts, opening markets, and seeking to limit regulatory and litigation costs has furthered the global economic expansion.”
Kerry:
In the past 20 years Kerry has cast dozens of votes for higher taxes on the middle-class. He voted against the Bush tax cut which brought us the present recovery. Despite this, paradoxically posing as the hero of the middle-class, Kerry has assailed the Bush tax cuts as being for “the rich” at the expense of “the middle-class.” Donning the mantle of Robin Hood, Kerry tells us he has a "plan" to tax “the rich” to subsidize (i.e., perpetuate) “the poor.” The hypocrisy of this is manifest. With a combined income of $5.5 million (and a net worth in excess of $500 million), the Kerrys paid $704,227 of income tax, which is an effective tax rate of 12.8 percent. In contrast, George and Laura Bush had about a tenth of the Kerrys' income and paid a tax rate of 30.4 percent. Federal statistics list the average federal tax rate as 20 percent. The fact that Kerry so carefully lowers his own tax rate below that of the average person is evidence that his proposal does not contemplate any personal sacrifice.
Equally manifest is the economic stupidity of Kerry’s welfare state proposals. According to 368 of the nation's leading economists (including six Nobel laureates, such as this year’s honoree Edward C. Prescott) “Kerry's proposals would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.” In other words, Kerry’s economic “plan” is in fact a prescription for renewed recession and resultant loss of jobs. And the cost of that plan is understated. Experience has shown that a higher tax rate can produce lower revenues (due to the resultant economic contraction). In any event Kerry’s proposed $800 billion in tax increases could hardly pay for his proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending for a bureaucratic health plan. The obvious result would be an increased deficit, a deeper recession, inflated currency, and rationed health care (as in Canada).
-------------------
“368 Economists Against Kerrynomics,” by J. Edward Carter & Cesar V. Conda, National Review on Line, October 13, 2004.
“America Enjoying Strong Economic Growth Despite Spin,” Daily Policy Digest, October 15, 2004; source: Larry Kudlow, “Solid Jobs, Solid GDP,” Townhall.com, October 11, 2004.
“Kerry's Wrong on the Economy, Too,” by Stephen Moore, Human Events Online.com, Oct 15, 2004
In sum, in Bush we have one of the greatest presidents of recent history. In Kerry we have one of the most fraudulent, corrupt, left-wing and disloyal politicians ever to presume to higher office.
okay........ you cannot compare Kerry and Bush at this point.
Kerry has never been President.
WHO KNOWS
MAYBE (just maybe) he would have been better than Bush.
considering how bad Bush is, we know why Kerry got 49% of the vote.
The question is, considering how utterly SHITTY Mr. George Walker Bush is, how the heck did Kerry not get 90% of the vote.
Answer: KERRY WAS/IS TRASH.
I mean, for God's sake man, this was the Democrats' chance to OBLITERATE the Republicans. An obviously corrupt (for anyone who cares for the truth anyway) WON. In a Demo-frickin-cratic Republic. This is absurd.
Why was it stupid for the country to reject what you designate as "trash"? I would think that it would be smart to throw the "trash" out.
Why would it be smart to support the candidate that bin Ladin wanted us to elect, the candidate that would not be steady at the helm, but would "flip flop" at the first sign of trouble, the candidate who insults every one of our allies as "window dressing" and "bribed and coerced," and tells them that the coalition's mission is "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," who considers terrorism a mere "nuisance" rather than a wartime enemy determined to destroy us?
Is it not clear that we made the only intelligent choice and that those who think otherwise are, . . . well, to put it plainly, dumb?
that entire post reminded me of watching a bird regurgitating earthworms for her young.
You better hope the Democrats remain the sole opposition to the Neocons because if another party were running against the recent string of Republicans the Neocons would not last a second.
maybe, sometime in the next few decades, if it's not too late by then, a state will choose a third party candidate. The election after that (if a third party candidate ever gets electoral votes) they will win by a landslide.
dhudlud said this in post #4 :
On September 11, 2001, America was attacked. President Bush promptly declared war on the terrorists (and the rogue regimes which harbor them), and took the fight to the enemy. In so doing, he assembled a coalition of thirty nations willing to contribute their efforts to the task. As a result, in an amazingly short time, he accomplished four major victories with regard to: (1) Afghanistan, (2) Iraq, (3) Libya, and (4) Al Qaeda. In Afghanistan and Iraq, two rogue (terrorist-harboring) regimes were overthrown and replaced with democracies friendly to America In Libya, a third such regime was influenced by the capture of Saddam to disclose and give up its weapons of mass destruction, and to cooperate with the United States. Meanwhile, 75% of Al Qaeda leadership was killed or captured.
You sound like a Bush cheerleader. You consider Iraq to be a success? That's ludacris. 75% of the Al Qaeda leadership was killed or captured? Umm, why do you believe that, because Bush told you on tv? That same idiot also admitted "we don't know the extent of Al Qaeda's ability to attack us anywhere in the world."
Bush's presidency is by far the biggest terrorist threat to our jobs, our economy and our own people than any other terrorist could hope to be.
You sound like a Bush cheerleader. You consider Iraq to be a success? That's ludacris.
It's way too early to say Iraq is a success or failure....it will take 5 to 10 years to make that assessment. This was a strategic decision to help stabilize a rogue nation in the heart of the Middle East. But the fact that Saddam Hussein is not in power is a huge victory, and on that basis alone you could say that we are successful.....that is on the road to success.
Secondly, what does a second rate rap artist have to do w/ Iraq?
Dekka00 said this in post #8 : that entire post reminded me of watching a bird regurgitating earthworms for her young.
You better hope the Democrats remain the sole opposition to the Neocons because if another party were running against the recent string of Republicans the Neocons would not last a second.
maybe, sometime in the next few decades, if it's not too late by then, a state will choose a third party candidate. The election after that (if a third party candidate ever gets electoral votes) they will win by a landslide.
Hmmm...if pigs had wings. I've been voting Libertarian for almost three decades. Don't hold your breath. You see, the Libertarian view, to me, seems to be common sense. Respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Now it's under attack from the left and the right.
Hmmm...if pigs had wings. I've been voting Libertarian for almost three decades. Don't hold your breath. You see, the Libertarian view, to me, seems to be common sense. Respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Now it's under attack from the left and the right.
The libertarian view's okay to a certain extent but if some disaster happens, something like a major fire, flood, hurricane, massive job loses, or even war etc people expect the government to sort it out.
In a lot of respects Western coutries need big government because the alternative is to hand everything over to private business and by law and practice businesses are responsible to their shareholders first.
If a business can for instance dump it's waste onto some third world country to save money they will and do because their motivating factor is increased profits, not the public good.
Corporations are undemocratic organisations but many people are happy to allow them to own and run more and more things to do with our lives. Interesting fact: during Nazi rule of Germany, Coke carried on selling them soft drinks but for obvious reasons didn't want anyone on our side to know, so invented Fanta orange.
IBM did business with Nazi Germany, too. Lots of American companies did business with the Soviet Union or the Soviet bloc. Apparently a few did business with Saddam Hussein. And can't wait to get into Cuba.
Well, you've got to realize that if you win an election, that means that you have the biggest influence on the government, not unlimited power, try as you like. Under a Libertarian government the individual would have much more personal autonomy. Big business would have to go back to earning money through production and competition instead of bribing...er...lobbying or influencing government. Rentseeking would stop.
The alternative is liberty- people controlling their own lives. Big government (Republican or Democrat) is its own biggest special interest group. They always vote for more for themselves. Last time I drove my old Ford pickup to the Federal building, I noticed that the employee parking lot was jammed full of new vehicles. The "commoner" parking lot had quite a few old clunkers.
11-12-2004 03:16 PM
