Sciavo and Congress

[jonb]

Yeah, it's called zugzwang. In chess, that means you have no move which will strengthen your position, so you choose the one which hurts you the least. In this case, their choices were offend 54% of their own party, or offend far more when they realize just how rotten Bush and DeLay really are.

Oh, I liked CNN's graphic: They included a bar graph saying 54% of Republicans, 54% of independents, and 62% of Democrats want to pull the plug. True data, but they skewed the graph by putting it on a scale from 53% to 63%, in effect making it look like 10% of Republicans and independents wanted to pull the plug compared to 90% of Democrats.

 

[Hockeytiger]

Originally posted by mindseye+Mar 24 2005, 12:12 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mindseye &#064; Mar 24 2005, 12:12 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Hockeytiger@Mar 24 2005, 12:44 AM
There is nothing for the Left to gain or lose out of this issue so it is not worth fighting. 

[post=293583]Quoted post[/post]​

Oh, but the Left has plenty to gain: seats in 2006. The GOP seriously misread the public pulse on this issue. They took that risk to divert attention from other GOP albatrossi like the Jeff Gannon affair, the ethics investigation of Tom DeLay, the plan to eviscerate Social Security, and of course, the War of Mass Deception and the latest round of associated Torture Memos.

[post=293591]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

No offense, but you are living in a liberal fantasy world (and that link proves it). Kink is fighting a fight that isn’t worth fighting and you are still fighting yesterday’s fights. I think I’m beginning to understand why the Democratic Party is having trouble winning elections. Hardly anyone is going to care about this case in November of 2005, let alone 2006. Social Security is still being played out and frankly, Democrats are unwittingly flirting with disaster over that issue and I’m not talking about the private accounts. No one outside the Beltway knows who Tom Delay is or even cares about his lack of ethics. The weapons of mass destruction (or lack thereof) and the torture issue were issues in last year’s elections, and the Democrats really profited well of those issues didn’t they? Lastly, I can’t even believe you brought up Jeff Gannon. That issue has no traction outside the GWB hatemongering community.

You think that the Republicans misread the public on this issue. In fact, they have not. How many people opposed to their efforts will vote Democratic rather than Republican next year because of this issue? The answer is less than a handful. The only people who really care about this issue are a few liberals who would vote Democratic anyways and religious conservatives. As I said earlier, Republicans are pushing this issue not to score points with the American people at large, but rather to score points with core Republican constituencies. This is a very minor victory for Republicans and neither an epic disaster nor a huge victory.

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Hockeytiger@Mar 24 2005, 01:59 AM
No offense, but you are living in a liberal fantasy world (and that link proves it).

[post=293604]Quoted post[/post]​

What a peculiarly right-wing statement. "No offense, but (something spiteful that clearly could offend)." No offense, but I just cut your mother&#39;s Medicare benefits&#33; No offense, but I&#39;m force-feeding your wife&#33; No offense, but here&#39;s a constitutional amendment banning couples like you from getting married&#33;

I didn&#39;t make up those numbers. You want a different source? Take your pick: ABC News/TNS; CNN/USA Today/Gallup. Here&#39;s a poll of just Utahns&#33;. Even in this über-red state, a majority of residents oppose the Congressional action in this matter, and a whopping 73.4% think the "spouse should have the final say" in a case like this.

Hate to break it to you, but for a &#39;fantasy&#39;, my world is gonna hurt when it bites your ass. No offense, of course. :headbang:

 

[Hockeytiger]

Originally posted by mindseye+Mar 24 2005, 08:20 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mindseye &#064; Mar 24 2005, 08:20 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Hockeytiger@Mar 24 2005, 01:59 AM
No offense, but you are living in a liberal fantasy world (and that link proves it). 

[post=293604]Quoted post[/post]​

What a peculiarly right-wing statement. "No offense, but (something spiteful that clearly could offend)." No offense, but I just cut your mother&#39;s Medicare benefits&#33; No offense, but I&#39;m force-feeding your wife&#33; No offense, but here&#39;s a constitutional amendment banning couples like you from getting married&#33;

I didn&#39;t make up those numbers. You want a different source? Take your pick: ABC News/TNS; CNN/USA Today/Gallup. Here&#39;s a poll of just Utahns&#33;. Even in this über-red state, a majority of residents oppose the Congressional action in this matter, and a whopping 73.4% think the "spouse should have the final say" in a case like this.

Hate to break it to you, but for a &#39;fantasy&#39;, my world is gonna hurt when it bites your ass. No offense, of course. :headbang:

[post=293641]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

For the record, I’m a Democrat and the Democratic Party is going to need a heck of a lot more than a set of polls over a single issue and a hatful of wishful thinking to take back Congress. Republicans are not running scared. Nor should they. If the American people are still discussing this issue a month before the elections, I agree it matters. But if the American people were not moved to vote Democratic over the war, or over significant Wall Street scandal or over the multitudes of pictures of tortured Iraqi prisoners, why do you think this issue will be a winner? Remember that it wasn’t that long ago that Republicans let the assault weapon ban expire. They faced equally poor polls over the issue, but in the end it barely even made a dent in the long term poll numbers, and I guarantee you that issue has more resonance with the American people than this one. Unless there is a Congressional election on Tuesday, none of those poll numbers you cited matter.

As a Democrat, I have grown tired of my party living in a fantasy world. A significant portion of my liberal colleagues still deny that the party even lost last year’s elections, as the link you provided in the previous post stated. How in the heck can Democrats win the next election if they can’t even face the fact the party lost the last election?

 

[13788]

carolinacurious:

How in the heck can Democrats win the next election if they can’t even face the fact the party lost the last election?

IF the last two elections were STOLEN, and at least one of them was, how in the heck can Democrats win the next election if they can’t even face the fact the elections were stolen?

 

[Hockeytiger]

Originally posted by carolinacurious@Mar 24 2005, 12:25 PM

How in the heck can Democrats win the next election if they can’t even face the fact the party lost the last election?

IF the last two elections were STOLEN, and at least one of them was, how in the heck can Democrats win the next election if they can’t even face the fact the elections were stolen?

[post=293685]Quoted post[/post]​

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious: Thank YOU for proving MINE.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious: Now lets hang on a second. I&#39;m actually with you, Htiger, on many of your points. The Schiavo issue is not going to swing the next election, it&#39;s not even going to help (the Democrats) you&#39;re absolutely correct about that.

The Democrat&#39;s do have large problems that need to be addressed, the last election shouldn&#39;t have been close enough to steal, at least not in a way that wouldn&#39;t have been obvious to everyone. I&#39;m not absolutely sure that it was stolen BTW. But IMO the Democrats need to wake up to THREE things: their "message" (platform/goals/whatever) needs work; their message, even when it is good, is not getting out; and the Republicans are not fighting fair.

I can see how you would think I&#39;m "clueless" about the problems in the Democratic party from my quick comments before this post but if you ignore:

1972 Watergate
1980 October Surprise
1988 Not really in the same league but "Willie Horton"

the rise of the Heritage Foundation and the other parts of the "massive right wing conspiracy" during Clinton&#39;s term.

2000 Florida, Supreme Court, et al.
2004 ??? but definitely not a "clean" election

you come across as just as clueless to me.

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by carolinacurious@Mar 24 2005, 02:07 PM
The Schiavo issue is not going to swing the next election, it&#39;s not even going to help (the Democrats) you&#39;re absolutely correct about that.

[post=293698]Quoted post[/post]​

See, I disagree with that. For years, the Republicans have been pushing values and morals at the expense of &#39;other people&#39; -- faggots and niggers -- while not doing much to coerce their white, middle-class base to conform to any sort of moral standards. Examples:

• As an example, they oppose abortion, but don&#39;t actively fight to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would make abortions illegal for the well-off. Instead, they target federally-funded programs, teenage pregnancy, and sex education -- all of which have a greater impact on poor people, which are disproportionately racial minorities.
• They support the &#39;sanctity&#39; of &#39;traditional marriage&#39; by railing against equal marriage for same-sex couples; not by restricting the availablilty of divorce -- which would, again, impact their base.
• Their war-on-drugs funding is concentrated against urban street drugs, like crack and meth, but not on the abuse of drugs of the elite like oxycontin and botox. Drugs that fall somewhere inbetween, like cocaine and ecstasy, receive an inbetween amount of attention.

With the Schiavo law, the Republicans have broadened their scope: "You can be white and middle-class, and we&#39;ll still make value decisions for you." This is the first case that&#39;s attracted significant media attention where the action is singularly directed not against people of color, or people of different sexual orientations, but against a white middle-class American family. The repercussions of this case will be deeper for the GOP than similar high-profile cases have been in the past.

 

[KinkGuy]

So if this case isn&#39;t bad enough to at least voice opposition over, when will it be worth the fight? When "they" void all of living wills? Ban anyone from marriage who isn&#39;t white? Outlaw mixed race marriage? Outlaw all abortion? Dictate which church you must attend? Put gay folks in concentration camps? Put you in jail for fornicating without the benefit of "legal recognized" marriage? Eliminate the electoral process?

At some point, we absolutely must stand up and fight. Which freedom is important enough to you, Hockeytiger, to make you at least, take a definitive position and maybe defend human and civil rights, even if they are rights that only you care about?

The rights and freedoms being legislated against, ignored and bastardized are ones that people fought and died to defend in this country. Those don&#39;t seem to be important.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious:

With the Schiavo law, the Republicans have broadened their scope: "You can be white and middle-class, and we&#39;ll still make value decisions for you." This is the first case that&#39;s attracted significant media attention where the action is singularly directed not against people of color, or people of different sexual orientations, but against a white middle-class American family. The repercussions of this case will be deeper for the GOP than similar high-profile cases have been in the past.

I&#39;d say that the biggest victims of the tax cuts and Social Security reform will be the white middle-class American family but...

Hey, if you&#39;re right, GREAT&#33;

Maureen Dowd agrees with you.

At least at this point all this political posturing really only affects one case and for the Democrats to make political hay out of this they will have to: be convinced that people will even remember this over a year from now; and be willing to bring up a topic that the Republicans will be GLAD to turn into a debate about how we&#39;re all baby-killers.

 

[Hockeytiger]

The difference between us is that when I think of the Republican Party, I don’t regard it as some “evil” menace. It is too easy to demonize. I detested the hateful things I heard from conservatives during Governor Clinton’s time in office. That being said, I also detest the hateful things I hear from liberals these days. After spending a year and a half in politics, I have learned one important fact. For every dirty trick Republicans commit, a Democrat commits and equally dirty trick. There is no more a “right wing conspiracy” as there was a “red menace”. It is merely scapegoating. If it somehow makes it easier for you to at least partially blame our party’s continued electoral defeats on a “Republican menace”, who am I to convince you all otherwise?

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by carolinacurious@Mar 24 2005, 07:06 PM
and be willing to bring up a topic that the Republicans will be GLAD to turn into a debate about how we&#39;re all baby-killers.

[post=293796]Quoted post[/post]​

Not all that hard to do when you control mass media. Free speech....what&#39;s that?

 

[jonb]

Actually, Hockeytiger, the Republicans got sloppy in the 2004 election. As a result, they got caught; negative votes in some counties, more votes for da Shrub than actual voters in other counties.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious:

The difference between us is that when I think of the Republican Party, I don’t regard it as some “evil” menace. It is too easy to demonize. I detested the hateful things I heard from conservatives during Governor Clinton’s time in office. That being said, I also detest the hateful things I hear from liberals these days. After spending a year and a half in politics, I have learned one important fact. For every dirty trick Republicans commit, a Democrat commits and equally dirty trick. There is no more a “right wing conspiracy” as there was a “red menace”. It is merely scapegoating. If it somehow makes it easier for you to at least partially blame our party’s continued electoral defeats on a “Republican menace”, who am I to convince you all otherwise?

"I detested the hateful things I heard from conservatives during Governor Clinton’s time in office. That being said, I also detest the hateful things I hear from liberals these days."

Uh... don&#39;t you mean PRESIDENT Clinton.

There&#39;s a difference. The "Impeach Clinton" and "Impeach Hillary" bumperstickers showed up before the inauguration. There was no factual basis for the criticism. We&#39;ve had four fan-fuckingtastic years to get a good handle on what President Bush is all about, if the 12 years that his father ran the show didn&#39;t clue you in, much of the "hateful" speech against Bush is also a matter of fact.

For every dirty trick Republicans commit, a Democrat commits and equally dirty trick.

Please fill in the blanks:

1. Watergate is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

2. The 1980 "October Surprise" is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

3. The Bush Family&#39;s involvement in the Savings and Loan debacle is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

4. The "Arkansas Project" is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

5. The 2000 "Brooks Brother&#39;s Riot" is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

6. Richard Mellon Scaife is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

7. Ted Olson is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

8. Ken Starr is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

8. Lee Atwater is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

9. Karl Rove is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats. (actually, I think you&#39;ll be doing good if you can find anyone at all like him other than Goebbels)

10. "The Swift Boat Veteran&#39;s for Truth" is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

11. Showing up at the 2004 Republican national convention wearing a purple band-aid and carrying a flip-flop (a la Ford/Carter 1976) is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

12. Saying anyone who disagrees with you in Unpatriotic is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

There is no more a “right wing conspiracy” as there was a “red menace”.

Please explain how the "Arkansas Project" does not, on its own, constitute a "right wing conspiracy". (although it&#39;s just a cog in the machine)

If it somehow makes it easier for you to at least partially blame our party’s continued electoral defeats on a “Republican menace”, who am I to convince you all otherwise?

Well the way I see it, we&#39;re both sitting across the table from each other (figuratively), thinking that if the other ignores the information we have to provide then they&#39;re "sunk". The difference is, I&#39;m with you on your information, I think that the last election should have been an 80/20 or a 70/30 blowout. The Democrats have a huge message problem - fine I&#39;m there. But what about the other two (somewhat related) points: 1. Even when they have a good message, various things interfere with that message getting out; and 2. We&#39;re not playing by the same rules as the other side?

OK, In your opinion, who&#39;s got the right ideas, the right message? If I decide to play the game your way, where should I look?

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by carolinacurious@Mar 25 2005, 12:40 AM
But what about the other two (somewhat related) points: 1. Even when they have a good message, various things interfere with that message getting out; and 2. We&#39;re not playing by the same rules as the other side?

[post=293869]Quoted post[/post]​

1) lies and fabrications created and funded by the Con&#39;s. ie; swiftboat veterans for deception and media manipulation.

2) If you don&#39;t like the rules, change them, ignore them or just flat out break the law.

I just had to add this one.
3) Own your own newspapers, tv and cable and radio networks.

 

[madame_zora]

I&#39;m not sure if the Swiftboat vets were willfully deceptive so much as completely insane.
What bothers me most about all of this is how many people actually belive the nonsense they spew out, even if there is clear evidence to the contrary. I just watched Farenehit 9/11 again last night. Do you realise that movie won the Cannes Film Festival&#39;s best movie of the year just last year? No one even remembers all the reasons we have to be upset with this administration anymore, it&#39;s like the whole country has an "automatic delete" button that erases our memory each night when we sleep. What the hell more could anyone do than what Moore tried to do to give us all a wake-up call? If that had no impact on us at all, I think we have a less-than-zero chance for a good future.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious:

1) lies and fabrications created and funded by the Con&#39;s. ie; swiftboat veterans for deception and media manipulation.

Oh, I think it&#39;s way more than that, but you&#39;re getting there:

3) Own your own newspapers, tv and cable and radio networks.

All responses are of course welcome but I am waiting on HockeyTiger.

IF ANYONE wants to try to fill in those blanks, have at it&#33;

2) If you don&#39;t like the rules, change them, ignore them or just flat out break the law.

See, I&#39;m not sure that there is that much wrong with the rules (well sure there IS but let&#39;s pretend for a moment so we can reign in this discussion a little bit), it&#39;s just that one side sees no reason to follow them because they are doing the work of the Lord, actually they were breaking them back before they became the God Squad but that seems to be the latest rationalization.

Political discourse in this country is already horrible, and I&#39;m not really sure that that advances the cause of Conservatism but I know that following their lead can&#39;t advance the cause of Liberalism. "Ok, you don&#39;t like FOX, well we&#39;ll make another just like it, only liberal&#33;", no, you can&#39;t, it may be horribly skewed to the left but it won&#39;t be liberal, not at least as I understand it. I want no part of it.

The Conservatives are breaking the "rules" left and right, I was primarily talking about campaign and election laws and rules before but Bush and Delay are openly breaking even "bigger" rules because they aren&#39;t going to investigate themselves. (bigger in quotes, because I&#39;m not sure that there is anything worse to American Democracy than throwing an election)

Breaking the Law: well, I&#39;ll anticipate HockeyTiger and say that of course some Democrats break the law and engage in dirty campaigning tricks, but from what I&#39;ve seen they do it much less and get prosecuted for it more.

Already we have a situation where the Republican rhetoric is COMPLETELY disconnected from Republican action. I can&#39;t say that the Democrats don&#39;t do some of this as well but I would like this situation to get better not worse, and I don&#39;t see how lying can advance the cause of Liberalism.

Breaking the Law II: On another message board that will remain nameless, I saw a discussion where some liberal techie types were making the observation that when it comes to hacking election computers, the liberals probably have a "brain trust" advantage. They were positing that if the Republicans weren&#39;t going to play fair then the Democratic hackers should come out to play. (I think it&#39;s very telling to mention that even these guys couldn&#39;t bring themselves to actually "throw" an election, what they wanted to do was to have someone who wasn&#39;t even running or a cartoon character win to show how easy it was to do.)

I think this is very problematic, particularly if they were to actually throw an election. I don&#39;t think it advances the cause of Liberalism or Democracy to throw elections and further reduce confidence in our electoral system. If they were to get caught (and of course they would, since the Republicans would know that they had already rigged the machines the other way and they currently "hold all the marbles" when it comes to law enforcement) we&#39;d never hear the end of it and people could start to fill in some of those blanks I left above.


(This is a discussion between Democrats and some of the things I have said are with that firmly in mind. Do I think all Republicans are evil? No, of course not. It just seems like all the good ones are blind. Both of my parents are/were Republicans and not of the "God Squad" variety either, they&#39;re not evil and wouldn&#39;t support foul play if they understood what was going on. Most Republicans that I have known personally are great people, they just don&#39;t seem to see the disconnect between what they believe is happening and what is happening.

So, anyway, if a Republican wants to jump in to this discussion, guns blazing, fine - please realize that I DO make a distinction between the 100 or so neo-cons that are running the show and the people that for one reason or another still vote for them. Oh, and I&#39;m not going to do everyone&#39;s reseach for them either. I&#39;ll be glad to help out with some small points but if you think that the 2000 and 2004 elections were clean and fair, then YOU do some research; don&#39;t know what the "October Surprise","Brooks Brother&#39;s Riot", or "Arkansas Project" are?, well, LOOK IT UP&#33; You&#39;ll learn more that way anyhow.)

 

[13788]

carolinacurious:

I&#39;m not sure if the Swiftboat vets were willfully deceptive so much as completely insane.
What bothers me most about all of this is how many people actually belive the nonsense they spew out, even if there is clear evidence to the contrary. I just watched Farenehit 9/11 again last night.

Oh, they were willfully deceptive alright, possibly in addition to being completely insane.

I&#39;m a M. Moore fan and even I thought Farenheit 9/11 was a bit of a mess. However, the nine minutes that Bush sat in the classroom AND the fact that the "news" never considered it newsworthy and even actively helped cover it up should have been enough to end Bush&#39;s presidency.

 

[madame_zora]

Oh, I&#39;ll agree that Farenheit was very slanted, but I didn&#39;t find anything he said that was UNTRUE. He didn&#39;t feel it was his job to post the Republican&#39;s side, which I can understand. He brought to light some things Americans should know about their pres., his family and their ties to the Bin Laden family, and what is happenning in our government. That movie raised very little discussion amoung any of us because it got dismissed as "leftist rubbish". Many of the Repubs interviewed as saying it was all lies later admitted to never having seen it. I doubt many people actually did see it (I don&#39;t keep up with Hollywood stats, so I really don&#39;t know), but I&#39;m sure most work-a-day people couldn&#39;t absorb that kind of information against their government that they have always put their faith in. They almost have to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory, or they will be forced to re-evaluate everything they&#39;ve come to believe in.

SwiftVets were actually coming right out and saying they were protesting the fact that Kerry came home and *gasp* told the truth&#33; I guess he really should be admonsished for reporting what he saw rather than just shutting up to keep the "Good Ol&#39; Boys" from looking like the mad dogs they really were.