Softball anyone? White House Press Corps...

[Dana Sheets]

http://www.nypress.com/16/11/news&columns/cage.cfm

Cage Match
Matt Taibbi

Cleaning the Pool
The White House Press Corps politely grabs its ankles.

After watching George W. Bush’s press conference last Thursday night, I’m more convinced than ever: The entire White House press corps should be herded into a cargo plane, flown to an altitude of 30,000 feet, and pushed out, kicking and screaming, over the North Atlantic.

Any remaining staff at the Washington bureaus should be rounded up for summary justice. The Russians used to use bakery trucks, big gray panel trucks marked "Bread" on the sides; victims would be rounded up in the middle of the night and taken for one last ride through the darkened streets.

The war would almost be worth it just to see Wolf Blitzer pounding away at the inside of a Pepperidge Farm truck, tearfully confessing and vowing to "take it all back."

The Bush press conference to me was like a mini-Alamo for American journalism, a final announcement that the press no longer performs anything akin to a real function. Particularly revolting was the spectacle of the cream of the national press corps submitting politely to the indignity of obviously pre-approved questions, with Bush not even bothering to conceal that the affair was scripted.

Abandoning the time-honored pretense of spontaneity, Bush chose the order of questioners not by scanning the room and picking out raised hands, but by looking down and reading from a predetermined list. Reporters, nonetheless, raised their hands in between questions–as though hoping to suddenly catch the president’s attention.

In other words, not only were reporters going out of their way to make sure their softballs were pre-approved, but they even went so far as to act on Bush’s behalf, raising their hands and jockeying in their seats in order to better give the appearance of a spontaneous news conference.

Even Bush couldn’t ignore the absurdity of it all. In a remarkable exchange that somehow managed to avoid being commented upon in news accounts the next day, Bush chided CNN political correspondent John King when the latter overacted his part, too enthusiastically waving his hand when it apparently was, according to the script, his turn anyway.

KING: "Mr. President."

BUSH: "We’ll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted..."

A ripple of nervous laughter shot through the East Room. Moments later, the camera angle of the conference shifted to a side shot, revealing a ring of potted plants around the presidential podium. It would be hard to imagine an image that more perfectly describes American political journalism today: George Bush, surrounded by a row of potted plants, in turn surrounded by the White House press corps.

Newspapers the next day ignored the scripted-question issue completely. (King himself, incidentally, left it out of his CNN.com report.) Of the major news services and dailies, only one–the Washington Post–even parenthetically addressed the issue. Far down in Dana Millbank and Mike Allen’s conference summary, the paper euphemistically commented:

"The president followed a script of names in choosing which reporters could ask him a question, and he received generally friendly questioning." [Emphasis mine] "Generally friendly questioning" is an understatement if there ever was one. Take this offering by April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks:

"Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the UN, how is your faith guiding you?"

Great. In Bush’s first press conference since his decision to support a rollback of affirmative action, the first black reporter to get a crack at him–and this is what she comes up with? The journalistic equivalent of "Mr. President, you look great today. What’s your secret?"

Newspapers across North America scrambled to roll the highlight tape of Bush knocking Ryan’s question out of the park. The Boston Globe: "As Bush stood calmly at the presidential lectern, tears welled in his eyes when he was asked how his faith was guiding him…" The Globe and Mail: "With tears welling in his eyes, Mr. Bush said he prayed daily that war can be averted…"

Even worse were the qualitative assessments in the major dailies of Bush’s performance. As I watched the conference, I was sure I was witnessing, live, an historic political catastrophe. In his best moments Bush was deranged and uncommunicative, and in his worst moments, which were most of the press conference, he was swaying side to side like a punch-drunk fighter, at times slurring his words and seemingly clinging for dear life to the verbal oases of phrases like "total disarmament," "regime change," and "mass destruction."

He repeatedly declined to answer direct questions. At one point, when a reporter twice asked if Bush could consider the war a success if Saddam Hussein were not captured or killed, Bush answered: "Uh, we will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people."

Yet the closest thing to a negative characterization of Bush’s performance in the major outlets was in David Sanger and Felicity Barringer’s New York Times report, which called Bush "sedate": "Mr. Bush, sounding sedate at a rare prime-time news conference, portrayed himself as the protector of the country..."

Apparently even this absurdly oblique description, which ran on the Times website hours after the press conference, was too much for the paper’s editors. Here is how that passage read by the time the papers hit the streets the next morning:

"Mr. Bush, at a rare prime-time press conference, portrayed himself as the protector of the country…"

Meanwhile, those aspects of Bush’s performance that the White House was clearly anxious to call attention to were reported enthusiastically. It was obvious that Bush had been coached to dispense with two of his favorite public speaking tricks–his perma-smirk and his finger-waving cowboy one-liners. Bush’s somber new "war is hell" act was much commented upon, without irony, in the post-mortems.

Appearing on Hardball after the press conference, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman (one of the worst monsters of the business) gushed when asked if the Bush we’d just seen was really a "cowboy":

"If he’s a cowboy he’s the reluctant warrior, he’s Shane… because he has to, to protect his family."

Newsweek thinks Bush is Shane?

This was just Bush’s eighth press conference since taking office, and each one of them has been a travesty. In his first presser, on Feb. 22, 2001, a month after his controversial inauguration, he was not asked a single question about the election, Al Gore or the Supreme Court. On the other hand, he was asked five questions about Bill Clinton’s pardons.

Reporters argue that they have no choice. They’ll say they can’t protest or boycott the staged format, because they risk being stripped of their seat in the press pool. For the same reason, they say they can’t write anything too negative. They can’t write, for instance, "President Bush, looking like a demented retard on the eve of war…" That leaves them with the sole option of "working within the system" and, as they like to say, "trying to take our shots when we can."

But the White House press corps’ idea of "taking a shot" is David Sanger asking Bush what he thinks of British foreign minister Jack Straw saying that regime change was not necessarily a war goal. And then meekly sitting his ass back down when Bush ignores the question.

They can’t write what they think, and can’t ask real questions. What the hell are they doing there? If the answer is "their jobs," it’s about time we started wondering what that means.
Volume 16, Issue 11  -  3/12/2003

[jorvik]

Where was Bush when our village needed a good idiot....that's what I want to know? ...........Uhhhh maybe that's unAmerican......I ( Of Course) meant Bair.

[Panther]

Some slight modifications and emphasis added for clarity and brevity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) ... posters are generally given a lot of latitude.... However, always keep in mind that ... insults, threats, derogatory comments, ... , etc directed at another poster (OR anyone else in a gratuitous manner) has repercussions. Consider that such actions do not further your own position on a subject of debate/discussion, but may be the cause of loss of posting priviledges if the behaviour continues. (It is my perogative on if, when and how many "warnings" an individual will get...)

7) I want to give lots of latitude.... That means posters must take a certain amount of personal responsibility and act like adults.

8) We won't all agree on things. That's why this is the "Tough Issues" forum. But I ... expect everyone to be able to make reasonable articulable points for their positions in the discussion or debate.

[Don Rearic]

http://www.nypress.com/16/11/news&columns/cage.cfm

Cage Match
Matt Taibbi

Cleaning the Pool
The White House Press Corps politely grabs its ankles.

After watching George W. Bush’s press conference last Thursday night, I’m more convinced than ever: The entire White House press corps should be herded into a cargo plane, flown to an altitude of 30,000 feet, and pushed out, kicking and screaming, over the North Atlantic.

Any remaining staff at the Washington bureaus should be rounded up for summary justice. The Russians used to use bakery trucks, big gray panel trucks marked "Bread" on the sides; victims would be rounded up in the middle of the night and taken for one last ride through the darkened streets.

The war would almost be worth it just to see Wolf Blitzer pounding away at the inside of a Pepperidge Farm truck, tearfully confessing and vowing to "take it all back."

Predictable, rabid writer embraces Russian Purge Tactics and praises them, even if he is using hyperbole for effect.

Here is something that sets the tone for the page that is linked:

Sh*thead: The Movie
Giuliani’s most famous critic on what the bio-pic got wrong.
Christopher X. Brodeur

The first word more or less describes most, if not all, of the website linked to.

The Bush press conference to me was like a mini-Alamo for American journalism, a final announcement that the press no longer performs anything akin to a real function. Particularly revolting was the spectacle of the cream of the national press corps submitting politely to the indignity of obviously pre-approved questions, with Bush not even bothering to conceal that the affair was scripted.

No, The Alamo came along time ago for the Journalists. One of the most famous engagements was the wonderfully talented Connie Chung, who obviously spent too much time watching her husband's TV Show (Maury Povich) and thought that was real Journalism when she did the whole "whisper in my ear" thing with Newt Gingrich's Mother and what her little boy Newt really though of then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Eerily predicted by Don Henley in a 1980's hit, "Dirty Laundry."

Wanna here part? Here it goes:

"Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry..."

Of course, Connie Chung is allowed to pull a suckhead play like that and while she fell on her sword, she damaged Gingrich and that was the goal. Al Gore could say whatever outlandish thing he wanted, he invented everything, whatever, nothing said, no hardballs then either. Of course, that was by design, wasn't it?

Let's not forget how Clinton came out of Ron Brown's funeral laughing his ass off until he spotted the TV cameras and he wiped his eyes and started crying. Did you ever see the video of it, to show you what a phony he was? The media knew about it and they never threw that "hardball" that everyone wants Bush pelted with, to ask him if he was laughing about some suction he was going to get in the Limo directly behind the hearse or what...

The media PROTECTED HIM, don't talk about hardballs and softballs now, you come off being as fake as he is and was. The only people that reported it to any great degree were right-wing talk show hosts on AM Radio, FACT. It HAPPENED.

Even more seriously, the Reporters were chosen, I don't know that the questions were pre-approved and quite frankly, after eight years of the Clinton Administration, I could not care less.

But, just to humor everyone, if EVERYTHING was scripted, Bush would not have had to answer anything to anyone about the order of the questions. Had the questions been Pre-approved, Bush would not have had to say this, would he?

KING: "Mr. President."

BUSH: "We’ll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted..."

See the logic? You probably won't. King had no idea. Helen Thomas had no idea she would NOT be chosen, but she was not on the list because she does not throw legitimate hardballs, she is just obnoxious.

Also, the whole thing was reported locally in Baltimore by Les Kinsolving who has a radio show, is a White House Correspondent and writes for Worldnetdaily.com as well.

Great. In Bush’s first press conference since his decision to support a rollback of affirmative action, the first black reporter to get a crack at him–and this is what she comes up with? The journalistic equivalent of "Mr. President, you look great today. What’s your secret?"

How dare people have to get scores like white folks to get in college! The audacity!

Hey, if you get in a car accident tonight, do you want the trauma surgeon to have the highest scores or do you want to give him 20 points so he can be a Doctor?

How about we start making the NBA live up to affirmative action standards? After all, they are an association of employers in the sports business, right? Why can't we have short, white basketball players? So what if you can't throw a ball, you should be a pitcher because you are one of the chosen few born somewhere NOT HERE.

But it was a nice little slap to Bush, an attempt, in an article about a "scripted" White House Press Conference.

Reporters argue that they have no choice. They’ll say they can’t protest or boycott the staged format, because they risk being stripped of their seat in the press pool. For the same reason, they say they can’t write anything too negative. They can’t write, for instance, "President Bush, looking like a demented retard on the eve of war…"

That's lovely, let us assume that is a realistic assessment of Bush. What does that make Al Gore? A genius? Clearly, if Bush is a demented retard, Gore was on the back of the short bus. Please...this is a real article? This guy is pissed off and writes this nonsense?

[Don Rearic]

I just had to share with you this tender moment.

http://www.gargaro.com/Autotear.avi

[Stryke]

Hi first post in this forum but this is a gooden

I wonder how much of the international perception that America is becoming to arrogant is purely language, The American mediasw use of English is incredibly dramatic , cliched , and overladen with rheotric , with speaches made by the presidant of hunting them down , got them on the run etc . quoting Ozzy Osbourne song lyrics etc , it reads to some parts of the war like some Hollywood script

then we have overuse of phrases like terrorisim

and Weapons of mass Destruction we know we know

Like the grenade attack by the Us soldier , thought Iniially to be a terorist attack .... hmm well even if by Iraqis or allies in my book would have been an act of war not terror , if US special forces did it Saddam it`d be a terrorist attack ? .

This not to criticise Americans or the military effort in anyway but i remeber the saying

two great nations seperated by a commen language ....

I wonder if thats even more true today , I wonder if the US would have more support if some of the scriptwriters/speechwriters understood writing for the international communtiy , rather than the american public ?

thoughts ?

Stryke

[Dana Sheets]

Propoganda cuts both ways. I've lost plenty of privacy rights since 9/11 and to hear that most if not plenty of past and current white house press conferences (of any president) were pre-scripted is not very comforting to me. "Freedom of the Press" is a difficult thing to hold onto during war time. The Press shouldn't compromise national security, but at the same time they should inform the public of actions that go against our shared principles (i.e. war crimes against non-combattants, etc.) But if doing that undermines the faith of the American People in a war then that undermines the faith of the soliders then have you again compromised security for the sake of transparency?

The propoganda machine is cranked up like a big dog right now. Everybody is shouting their message, their version of the truth and I'm finding it harder and harder to filter through everything I'm being exposed to.

This isn't about Clinton or Bush or Reagan or if the liberal press treats Republicans differently - or if you ask the liberals they'll tell you that the press is really controlled by conservatives --- that is simply moot discussion because there are too many factors at play. To me, scripting white house press conferences - whether you're democrat or republican, is wrong. Not having the white house press corps be a rotating group of folks is wrong. Why even bother with the question and answer stuff at all? Why not just let the president make statements and be done with it?

[Don Rearic]

Propoganda cuts both ways.

You are correct.

I've lost plenty of privacy rights since 9/11...

I think the Jury is still out on exactly what freedoms we have traded for promised security that will probably never be.

Understand something about my posts and my way of thinking that many others here do not. I voted for George W. Bush because I believe the alternative would have been an absolute disaster of epic proportions for this country. Yes, Al Gore was not fit to serve as President of the Country in my opinion. Like his friend Bill Clinton, he has a severe problem with something very important called the "truth." After eight years of lying and nonsense, it was time to change the course.

Also understand and many Americans lost civil rights under Bill Clinton and this would have continued under Gore to a greater extent. The Right to Self-defense in the modern world does not hinge on empty handed martial arts, it hangs on the private possession of firearms because that is the maximum you will have to deal with on the street and that is what you need for "effective" Self-defense in a wide variety of circumstances.

There are incredibly troubling things about The Patriot Act, The Department of Homeland Security and the TSA. I don't like the fact that at least one pervert with the TSA apparently fondled a pregnant woman's breasts during one of their stupid and Draconian "searches." Understand that most people you run into at the airport that are lower level TSA people are the same morons that were Rent-a-Cops before 9-11-01 happened, they have better pay, much better benefits and the uniform is nicer. But they're just as greasy, shady and stupid for the most part.

I have dire concerns about our immigration policies and the securities of our borders. I don't think any of our National Security Planning that refuses to address these issues is going to have any degree of success.

So, Dana, since you seem to be a very rational person and you are being logical and calm, I would ask you to understand that. I voted for George Bush but I do not worship him nor do I apologize for him. I do, however, find it to be insulting when people call him a "demented retard" or "stupid" when is clearly not stupid. It's time to elevate politics or we are going to die as a Nation. It is time to stop with the cheap shots. I can prove Bill Clinton and Al Gore are liars and that Gore is none too bright, no one can really prove that Bush is stupid. So, I'm sick of all of the slams when the people that do the slamming DO support people who are dishonest and in some cases, stupid.

I understand your concerns and I share the same with you about privacy rights and a host of other rights that are slowly slipping and they will continue to slip regardless of Democrat or Republican powerbase.

...and to hear that most if not plenty of past and current white house press conferences (of any president) were pre-scripted is not very comforting to me.

Bush used the word "scripted," but I don't know that this even that is correct. The Reporters were chosen beforehand. Obnoxious people who would turn it into a circus were not chosen, people like Helen Thomas.

"Freedom of the Press" is a difficult thing to hold onto during war time. The Press shouldn't compromise national security, but at the same time they should inform the public of actions that go against our shared principles (i.e. war crimes against non-combattants, etc.)

On this forum you have seen one person who says Al-Jazeera is telling the truth and that news outlet is an alternative for those seeking the same. Al-Jazeera is biased and they are Pro-Bomber. Period. I don't have a problem with the White House eliminating the obnoxious snots that are out to smear George Bush - that being their primary goal.

Further, there is no "informing" the public about war crimes against non-combatants. In war, there will always be innocents destroyed and there will always be "Friendly Fire." This Administration has went to greater lengths to protect the populace of Iraq even moreso than the last Administration did in Bosnia, etc. What say you?

Have we not went to extraordinary lengths to limit damage that ALWAYS exists in violent conflict? You are never going to have a war that has zero collateral damage, it will not happen.

There were over 10,000 people in the countryside killed when we invaded Normandy. At no other time in modern history has a country tried to limit the death and destruction that can be thrust into the civilian populace of a country where a war is taking place. We are doing it, right now. There are no "war crimes" that we are involved with. Take a look at that young woman from Palestine, West Virginia. She was not in an accident, they beat the hell out of her. Two broken legs, one arm and a shattered disc. They were slapping her around in a hospital bad enough that an Iraqi man, you know, one of the people that some of these people on the forums would lead you to believe hate us so much, he was so enraged that he risked his life and that of his Wife, to inform Americans where she was.

If the Press is not going to ask Bush about the war crimes of the Hussein Regime and they are going to focus on nonsense like we are doing it, I don't find anything wrong with having a canned meeting.

But if doing that undermines the faith of the American People in a war then that undermines the faith of the soliders then have you again compromised security for the sake of transparency?

My faith is there that we are doing the right thing and it is disingenuous for any liberal and/or Democrat to stand up and say a damned thing about us doing this. I remember the terrible stories coming out of Bosnia with gang rapes and torture and the rest of it. How can intervention in that be "just" but we are supposed to believe Saddam Hussein and Al-Jazeera in this instance? Why is this not "just?"

The propoganda machine is cranked up like a big dog right now. Everybody is shouting their message, their version of the truth and I'm finding it harder and harder to filter through everything I'm being exposed to.

I wrote on here a few days ago about an Iraqi man standing next to a U.S. Marine, the Marine was cutting down a poster of Hussein and the Iraqi was pounding on the poster's face with his shoe. I was told to not believe my lying eyes.

I saw people dancing in the streets in front of our Marines, again, I am supposed to ignore this as I am supposed to ignore the fact that a car bomb went off, there was a driver and a pregnant woman in the car. The pregnant woman exited the car screaming and as three soldiers approached, the driver detonated the device. It is perfectly, crystal clear to me that they forced her into that car so the monkeys at Al-Jazeera could say, "U.S. Troops kill pregnant Iraqi woman." It's all B.S., we are fighting people who fight in a savage manner and all the while, we are desperately trying not to hurt the innocents that they hide behind or force into vehicles and other positions to fight behind.

I have seen pictures of very young boys, as young as my own Son, with an AK47 in their hand, are you telling me that they went and signed up and received the rifle or was it thrust into their hands?

And the Democrats, some of them, they will stand up and defend that but call people a child abuser if they teach their kids to shoot a weapon safely? Come'on.

This isn't about Clinton or Bush or Reagan or if the liberal press treats Republicans differently - or if you ask the liberals they'll tell you that the press is really controlled by conservatives --- that is simply moot discussion because there are too many factors at play.

It's not moot at all. If a liberal insists that the Press in this country is not biased to the liberal point of view, I revert back to my statement about mental illness, yes, I believe that anyone who thinks Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and the CNN crew are not slanted to the liberal agenda, I believe they have a screw loose.

And all they do is cry about Rush Limbaugh or FOX News, like the opposition is not supposed to have any advocacy in the mainstream news???

Back during the Bosnian Conflict, we heard horrible stories about women being gang raped, ethnic cleansing, there was a picture of a lone woman who had hanged herself because the enemy was coming and she knew what would happen. Everyone here for the most part thought that tragic and it was indeed a horrible conflict. Where are all of the good liberals now when it comes down to this? In their silent indifference, this is why I believe they are farther left than they will admit, it's as if they don't want to go against someone who has patterned himself after Josef Stalin, and Hussein has with his Ba'th Party. Where is NOW and all of the other fine, liberal organizations when it comes to the oppressed and abused, raped and tortured women of Iraq?

Nowhere to be found because this time around, there is a Republican kicking ass and not Bill Clinton.

[Panther]

It has now been reported (but not given much coverage) that the group of civilians who were shot while running through a U.S. military checkpoint (which had signs to stop in multiple languages including Farsi) were ordered to do so by Saddam Fedayeen. One survivor has evidently confessed that relatives were being held captive and these civilians were told to run the checkpoint and sacrifice themselves (so that the Iraqis would have civilian deaths for propaganda) or else their relatives/families would be murdered.

There is also a (very valid) explanation that has now been reported that counters this NY article about the press briefings being scripted. The explanation (I haven't seen it myself, I was told about it) states that the list method has been used for years over a number of Presidencys because there are so many reporters with so many questions and limited time, in order to make things fairer to ALL the reporters they decided to rotate names and put them on a list. That is why sometimes you will see the well-known reporter chosen and sometimes you will see the unknown reporter chosen. It also isn't cast in stone and that is why people still jump & fidget & shout to the President... if someone catches his eye, it is his perogative to chose them regardless of the list. According to what I've heard, it has nothing to do with scripted Q&A.

I agree with Dana that our freedoms are eroding at an enormous and alarming rate. I also agree with Don that the erosion has been occuring for a long time under many administrations. The fact is that we are in a one party system... half that party calls themselves Democrats and the other half calls themselves Republican. It matters little whether one person wants to stomp on Right X and save Right Y, while a different person wants to stomp on Right Y and save Right X... the truth is that either way, your inalienable Rights, granted to you by your Creator, are going to get stomped on.

[Don Rearic]

Which has always been my bone of contention with people who are vehemently opposed to voting for Republicans and choose the protest vote of Liberatarian. Because when you don't choose the lesser of two evils and you stomp your feet and go for a third with no chance or hope of winning, you have still made the choice. Not to choose between the lesser of two evils, you have still chosen to support whatever party you split up.

The only hope is to educate people, continual education as to The Bill of Rights and hope for the best at the moment. This is extremely hard to do when people don't understand that affirmative action as it now stands is actually just another form of discrimination, it is hard to do when people don't understand what the Electoral College is, why it is there and that this is a Republic that operates on a few Democratic Principles but it is NOT, nor has it ever been a "Democracy" which is Mob Rule.

They don't understand that welfare and other programs are a bribed vote for whomever wants to play Robin Hood at any given time. They don't understand alot of things. Hopefully, one day, they will before it is too late to do anything about it.

[Panther]

Or why not holding your nose and not voting the "lesser of two evils" are acceptable actions...


On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.

Odd, said Arthur, I thought you said it was a democracy.

I did, said Ford. It is.

So, said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, Why don't the people get rid of the lizards?

It honestly doesn't occur to them, said Ford. They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.

You mean they actually vote for the lizards?

Oh yes, said Ford with a shrug, of course.

But, said Arthur, going for the big one again, why?

Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, said Ford, the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?

-- from "So Long, and Thanks for All The Fish", by Douglas Adams


Remember that at one time, "Republicans" were the "third party"...

[Don Rearic]

I have a Libertarian streak a mile wide. I have also heard and read about major players wanting to do away with everything, not everything, but it might as well be.

"Who needs the FAA? Do you mean that the airlines won't put safety first? Are you stupid?"

That sort of thing is never going to fly with anything remotely resembling an electable majority of people. Most people are not going to vote for that thing and rightfully so, Panther.

And that sort of thing is rampant in the LP. Big Business usually does not give a damn about anything except money. And I'm a Republican! Even I admit that, you do have to watch over them and if there were no FAA, yes, I believe we would have a very unsafe environment. That is just one example of the sort of unworkable, unrealistic nitwittery that you hear some LP folks talk about.

It's sort of like saying that Nightclub Owners would never have unsafe environments, some people don't care, they give less than a sh*t about safety or anything but gong to the bank with a fat bag O' loot.

Bush V. Clinton is a prime example of a certain segment of the electorate stomping their feet for Perot in protest and they got what they deserved, but we did not.

Dole was weak and he just lost.

In a wildcard play, The Greens destroyed Gore/Lieberman.

See the dynamic?

Right here and now, if you do NOT vote for the lesser of two evils, you are, in all probability, going to get a nightmare.

Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - Santayana

Modern Version:

Those that can remember the past are condemned to repeat it along with those that don't remember the past.

[Panther]

Don,

I never advocated voting for one party over another... Demopublican, Republicrat or otherwise...

I just pointed out that if you vote for the lesser lizard one thing is certain... a lizard will get elected.

I know folks who say the things you pointed out... IMNSHO, there is a distinction that must be made between being for less government and more freedom and being for outright anarchy... Then again, anarchy has been given a bad rap.

smiley captioned for the humor-impaired.

[Dana Sheets]

Well I certainly picked the right forum for this one.

I've been chatting for the last couple weeks about my frustrations of their not being a viable third (or as Panther would say, second) party. And I've sort of been trying to figure out how to get Microsoft, Coke, and McDonalds to pay me to found a really strong Third Party. I figured I'd have to come up with some catchy name first...something like "Uniters" "United People" or possibly the "McCocaWindows" Party. It would sort of be like sports areas, whoever comes up with the most money gets to name the party. Can't really do Labor or Social since those words come with as much baggage as Democrat and Republican and wouldn't be as attractive.

Calling George Bush stupid seems to be the very shallow reflex-comeback I hear from most people who were not in favor of his taking the presidency. By all reports that I've read, he's quite intelligent, has a strong work ethic, deep spirituality, a good mediator, and has a firm sense of justice. These are all qualities I look for in a leader. But I've got a lot of green in me and a lot of civil rights things I care about and a lot of anti-big business sentiment I have against Cheney and a general dislike of the old cronie network in Washington in general (which, of course, applies to both sides) so I voted with the majority. (Sorry, couldn't resist the joke) Oh I know the gun thing would have been bad under Gore - but I'd still keep mine.
Nationalized Health Care would bring a flood of immigrants to this country that would bring our econmony to it's knees. So that is a concern too, but who I voted for or didn't vote for doesn't matter at this point. Bush is the CIF, he's the preisdent, and he's where the buck is supposed to stop.

For example - if Pres. Bush says it's time to go to war with Iraq I hear that on the radio, read it in the newspaper and online. So from the press I learn why Mr. Bush et al. thinks we need to do this.

These are some the reasons I heard for the war:
-We're going to war because they broke the sanctions.
-We're goign to war because they have weapons of mass destruction
-We're going to war to protect American interests
-We're going to war to free the Iraqui people
-We're going to war to topple Saddam's regime
-We're gong to war because we must do what others do not have the courage to do
-We're going to war because there are potential/known ties to terrorism
-We're going to war to prevent ties to future terrorism

Using justifications like that, we can go to war with Pakistan, Turkey, Israel, Syria, North Korea, ourselves, China, France, and Russia. Now granted, Saddam's way of being a dictator is very old school, communist-era kind of oppression which is very unsavory today. Many other countries have gotten more sophisticated about it - with the notable except of North Korea.

But sometimes it doesn't seem like this war added up to the sum of it's parts. There are many regimes in Africa that commit the same sorts of crimes against the people. There are other countries who have weapons of mass destruction. There are other countries who flaunt UN resolutions. There are other countries with ties to terrorism. There are other countries who fit the bill.

This kind of fractured sale hasn't engendered any confidence on my part. And so then I wonder if the fracture came from the top down (i.e. from the White House) or did the fracture happen in the press, or did the fracture happen because when you've got a gazillion media outlets you're bound to end up with spaghetti.

Dana

[Don Rearic]

Calling George Bush stupid seems to be the very shallow reflex-comeback I hear from most people who were not in favor of his taking the presidency.

He did not "take the Presidency," he was elected. Let's try to deal with facts and not emotion. He has won the vast majority, if not every, re-count in Florida which means he was elected. If that is not understood correctly, then the Electoral College is not understood and if that is not understood, I'm certainly not going to start a history class here to explain it.

By all reports that I've read, he's quite intelligent, has a strong work ethic, deep spirituality, a good mediator, and has a firm sense of justice. These are all qualities I look for in a leader.

Not only the qualities of a good leader, also the qualities not usually found in a thief. See above statement.

But I've got a lot of green in me and a lot of civil rights things I care about and a lot of anti-big business sentiment I have against Cheney and a general dislike of the old cronie network in Washington in general...

I think the good old "Green Movement" would do itself a great favor by losing the Watermelon Element, meaning, those that are Green on the outside and Red on the inside. The spirit of it is hijacked by communists.

I don't want to be drinking dirty water, but I think Nader and many others also come up with some hairbrained schemes, there is alot about the movement that is rather wacky...

Ditto what I said earlier about Civil/Human Rights.

I also don't have a whole lot of love (Ain't that a Zeppelin song? ) when it comes to big business for the most part. That does not disturb my feelings about Cheney, however. I like the fact that he has drifted in and out of politics and been in business, beats a Kennedy who make their buck on politics straight up - forever.

Clinton was living proof that the cronie network that does exist will welcome a fellow socia...errah...diehard liberal with open arms.

Oh I know the gun thing would have been bad under Gore - but I'd still keep mine.

For a while, until they started charging you to keep it and making you jump through other hoops until it became impossible to do so.

Nationalized Health Care would bring a flood of immigrants to this country that would bring our econmony to it's knees.

Proof of your words is in the State of California, they are currently on the ropes and they are having the snot beat out of them...

But sometimes it doesn't seem like this war added up to the sum of it's parts. There are many regimes in Africa that commit the same sorts of crimes against the people. There are other countries who have weapons of mass destruction. There are other countries who flaunt UN resolutions. There are other countries with ties to terrorism. There are other countries who fit the bill.

Yes, the Heavens don't smile on the Rwanda Conflict at all, it was horrid. It is also a prime example of what happens when the civilian populace is disarmed. Anyone who runs is machinegunned, anyone who stands still is hacked to death with a machete. Considering the U.N. does not believe in the private ownership of arms, you can see what would be the norm in some areas of the world if they had their way.

There are few countries that fit ALL of those things at once, there are many that fit into the columns, in other words, but few that fit all of them to this degree. Syria and Iran are right on the list with Iraq and they should be dealt with in a similar manner if they don't learn the lesson from watching Iraq right now.

You also have to understand that 9-11-01 changed alot of things, while I don't think are liberties should be flushed because of it, I do believe the way we conduct business on an international should change and I see change for the better.

If weakness worked, 9-11-01 would have never happened. We were weak and they hit us anyway, like a common street thug, the only thing a terrorist understands and respects is brute force and deliberate violence.

And we need to be giving them a bellyfull of it instead of waffling about making anymore enemies. We already have them, we have some more friends when we lick our wounds and react with tears about our dead. When it comes time to kick ass, they shake their heads in bewilderment.

You're a bright person, I think the more you examine things, the more you will see and it might be an epiphany.