The Republican Convention and the Politics of Emotion

[DrSmellThis]

Without thinking about who is right or wrong, it was really interesting how the simple ideas

of the Republican Party aroused passion so easily, as compared to the "nuanced multilayeredness" of Democratic

thinking. Many Americans will be rallied by the Republicans' speeches, which appealed to ideas that it is easy to

feel enthusiastic about. It even moved the patriot in me to listen to some of it. Of course, much of it was generic

patriotism, which no party owns. Nonetheless, the Republicans' appeals to patriotism seem more effective

emotionally. Arnold raised and exhibited an almost "-none OD like" level of this. I almost got a DIHL myself. (;)

Then I got a bit scared of his dictator-like presentation, but maybe he put on too much PI, or snorted some!)



I'd say that the Democrats have their work cut out for them, in terms of emotional appeal. The Republicans

have just flat out done better at this so far, IMHO. To win, Kerry needs to role model the emotions we need and want

to feel; and evoke them powerfully. He needs to be firey and passionate; sharp and clear headed to defeat the

incumbent.

Incumbency always enjoys the benefit of appealing to people's wish to strongly believe we are doing

great, of course. Then there is the fear of the unknown, which Kerry represents more than Bush as an incumbent

(Kerry should note here that there are also a few scary unknowns with Bush). They played that one up too. This is

already quite a bit of inherent emotional power the Republicans have. But there's more to it.

The Democrats are

a relatively complicated party in search of simple ideas and the strong passions that attach to them. If they want

to be successful, they need to meditate continuously until they get the same kind of emotional clarity the

Republicans seem to enjoy. It can't ride squarely on anger against Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Why? Anger isn't the

emotion of leadership, but is rather the emotion of the oppressed (The "help is on the way" slogan targeted this

issue, but fell short). It's a "beta emotion" if used too much. Conversely, fear is often evoked to great effect by

those in power.

Regarding emotional clarity, I think that the idea of "integrity" is fundamentally important for

Democrats. Integrity, personal and national, is a huge concept that seems to sum up much of what they talk about.

Integrity makes you feel comfortable with who you are, like you are a "good person". People need and yearn to feel

that. But Democrats also need to appeal better to the evocative ideas that already dominate the American emotional

palette; like freedom, democracy, security, reassurance, and hope. For example, they need a compelling idea of

"sustainable prosperity" to compete with "Reaganomics". I think sustainable prosperity results from the efficient

sharing of human and global resources, within communities wherein simple happiness and human potential are fostered.

I personally get lots of warm and fuzzy emotions thinking about that one. Peace is another wonderfully emotive idea.

A just war can only make sense, and be ultimately won, from within a compelling idea of peace.

"Prosperity",

"integrity" and "peace" are elegant political ideas that evoke deep, powerful feelings. Perhaps the Democrats should

consider using them more often. Then again, just because something feels good does not make it so. :type:

[Holmes]

Well said.

Emotional

appeal is, sadly, what it's all about. Screw meaningful content.

How about them Bush girls? (Is Yale still

considered Ivy League?)

[DrSmellThis]

And then would Harvard be Bush

League?

Nice picture, Mr. Holmes. You may as well keep us guessing.

[belgareth]

Well said Doc. Good points that

the dems should be looking at. But I agree with Holmes' remark about emotional appeal.

[Whitehall]

The advantages the Republican Party brings to this election are fundamental ones - better leaders and

better ideas. The Democrats have built (or degraded) their power base to "gimme" special interests without a

unifying plan for every citizen. The leadership team holding office is clearly one of the best, most effective,

most clear-eyed bunch of men and women in recent history.

It's easy to get emotional once the trust is

justified.

The two best speeches were by Arnold and by Zell Miller - loved them both.

[a.k.a.]

Kerry sold out his own party. 90% of

the Democratic delegates oppose the war in Iraq, and so does a majority of the nation.
He should be

seething with righteous indignation over a war waged under false premises — that would add some needed emotional

substance to the Democratic campaign — but he just wants to convince everybody he can fight it better. Pussy. He’s

just handing the election over to Bush.

[Holmes]

He should be

seething with righteous indignation over a war waged under false premises — that would add some needed emotional

substance to the Democratic campaign — but he just wants to convince everybody he can fight it better. Pussy. He’s

just handing the election over to Bush.

Bush is pushing buttons and pulling heartstrings. Kerry is

not.


The two best speeches were by Arnold and by Zell Miller - loved them

both.

Yeah, Arnold had me at "John Wayne." Or was it "President Richard Nixon?" No, wait: I think it

was "Girly-Men." Or "SIEG HEIL!" Shit, I can't remember.

Hey, at least he admitted that he's a bad actor.

(How endearing.)

Zell Miller?

"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's

Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone

calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."

Ugh. Come out of the closet already (and don't

forget your loafers).

I was just reading his autobiography, Zell Miller: M.A.N. With Huge Cock (And Proud

To Show Ya). A fascinating memoir.

[Pancho1188]

I'm sorry if this is off the

discussion as I didn't read this whole thread (being lazy), but in regards to politics and emotion...

I think

that Michael Douglas summed it up in The American President:

For the last several months

Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was to a certain extent about character. And while

I have been unwilling to engage in his attacks on me, I have been here three years and three days and I can say

without hesitation that being president of this country is entirely about character. For the record, yes, I am a

card carrying member of the ACLU ... but the more important questions is why aren't you Bob. Now this is an

organization whose sole purpose is to defend the bill of rights ... so it naturally begs the question why would a

Senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for president choose to reject upholding the

constitution. Now, if you can answer that question folks than you're smarter than I am ... because I didn't

understand it until a few hours ago. America isn't easy. America, is advanced citizenship ... you've got to want

it bad ... because its gonna put up a fight. Its gonna say you want free speech? Then lets see you acknowledge a man

whose words make your blood boil who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you

would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. Its gonna say you want to claim this land is the land of the

free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens

exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that; defend that; celebrate that in your classrooms

... then you can stand up here and claim that this is the land of the free. I've known Bob Rumson for years and

I've been acting under the assumption that the reason Bob devoted so much time and energy shouting at the rain was

because he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong, Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it, Bob's

problem is that he can't sell it. He is interested in two things and two things only ... making you afraid

of it and telling you whose to blame for it ... that ladies and gentlemen is how you win elections. You gather a

group of middle aged, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time and to preach to

them about American values and character. And then you flash an old photo of the presidents girlfriend and you

tell them she's to blame for their rotten lives ... and you go on television and you call her a whore. Sidney Ellen

Wade has done nothing to you Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through school, protect the interests of

American school teachers and lobby for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate Bob, then

you'd better stick with me ... because Sidney Ellen Wade is way out of your league. I've loved two women in my

life. I lost one to cancer ... and I lost the other because I was so busy keeping my job, that I forgot to do my

job. Well that end right now. Tomorrow the White House is sending a bill to Congress for its consideration ... House

Resolution 455, an energy bill, calling for a twenty percent reduction in the emissions of fossil fuels over the

next ten years. It is by far, the most aggressive stride ever taken to attempt to reverse the affects of global

warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out.

I'm throwing it out and writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of

assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security and I will go door to door if I have to

but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right and I'm gonna get the guns. We've got serious problems and we

need serious people. And if you want to talk about character and American values Bob, fine ... but you'd better

come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card, you just tell me where and when and I'll show up.

This is a time for serious people Bob and your fifteen minutes are up. My name is Andrew Shepherd and I am the

President.

Creating a campaign is easy. You tell the country what

the problems are and you say that you're the person to solve them. Winning is hard because you have to blame the

other person for all of the problems or say that their solution is dumb and yours is better.

Now I'm

going really off topic...

People complain that politicians lie. Well, I thought about this, and they have to,

basically. Bush was honest, and he got fried and later retracted his statement.

"We may never win the war on

terror..."

Wow, truth for once. You can win this just like you can't win the war on drugs...you can't prevent

individuals from doing chaotic things when you give them the freedom and liberty that incidentally extends to having

the capability to do them. If you have the right to bear arms, you automatically have the capability to cause harm

to many people. That's the reality of the situation...but politicians can't admit to that. No one will vote for

a guy who admits that the system is fallible and that you can't prevent every bad thing from happening. Kerry

comes right back and says that he will fight the war better and win...and then, naturally, Bush must retract his

statement or Kerry will look stronger than him despite the fact that Kerry can't 100% prevent random horrible acts

from happening, either.

I was thinking about this, and I may be wrong because this was a recent thought, but any

politician that started preaching the truth would lose. Therefore, it is actually by our voting that keeps liars in

office because they tell us what we want to hear, not the truth. We want to hear that we are strong, safe,

economically growing, creating jobs, etc...no one wants to hear the President admit that we're in a recession...and

if he did, the stock market would take a 1,000-point shot. Yet everyone complains that politicians lie. Who votes

in the liars, and who needs the liars to lie to sleep soundly at night? Hmmm...

The scapegoat is created with

the sole purpose of putting a face to the fear and making people safe. The war in Iraq, oil, special interests,

etc. aside, is a way to show citizens that the government is taking action and being proactive in fighting

terror...who would vote for a President who said, "Well, individuals did this, and there's not much we can do about

it. All we can do is strengthen our defenses and prevent further catastrophes in the future. However, since the

people who did this are dead from the crashes, there's not much else we can do to punish them, is there?" (again, I

know these people are part of bigger groups with leaders, but I am taking major liberties to make a point)

It's

sad, but the government is an interesting result of the human psyche.

What a psychological field day one could

have analyzing this...

Please no one take this as the start of a political debate for one side or the other...I

was just taking this as a partial psychological analysis...just brainstorming.

[Mtnjim]

[QUOTE=Holmes...Emotional appeal

is, sadly, what it's all about. Screw meaningful content....[/QUOTE]

Something I noticed because of it's

currency, (I'm not effected because I'm not an hourly employee and I live in California with laws that overrule)

was Bush's talk about making the country more "worker friendly". This from a man who just signed into law a bill

taking away "overtime pay" from millions (except for those who live in the 8 states who's laws overrule this).


:hammer:

[Whitehall]

I wondered too

about "worker friendly". Massive immigration or new "guest worker programs" are certainly NOT in the interest of

anyone legally currently holding or seeking a job in the USA.

Some of the other programs Bush mentioned might

have merit but the devil is in the details. The overtime rule change seems much misrepresented in the mainstream

press. It does help low wage employees.

I will admit I was a little embaressed with all the "USA" chanting

but I'm not one for mass emotions.

I'm curious about the reactions from people who saw it in other

countries.

Ultimately, a voter has four choices - Bush, Kerry, Nader, or not voting. Somebody has to hold

the job and no one is perfect. Life is full of choices like that.

[Zeus]

Aw Bush better work hard if he

wants to keep those numbers up. I think he loses 1% in the polls every time his daughters are shown on TV.

[Zeus]

Hmmm... I dont think the Governator

needs PI to get the ladies. He has enough primal instinct flowing through his blood anyway. lol

Hopefully he can

be president oneday, just gotta get that amendment passed

[Holmes]

Ultimately, a

voter has four choices - Bush, Kerry, Nader, or not voting. Somebody has to hold the job and no one is perfect.

Life is full of choices like that.

That much is true.


Hmmm... I dont think the

Governator needs PI to get the ladies. He has enough primal instinct flowing through his blood anyway.

lol

Hopefully he can be president oneday, just gotta get that amendment passed


:rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :LOL:

[DrSmellThis]

The advantages the Republican Party brings to this election are fundamental ones - better

leaders and better ideas. The Democrats have built (or degraded) their power base to "gimme" special interests

without a unifying plan for every citizen. The leadership team holding office is clearly one of the best, most

effective, most clear-eyed bunch of men and women in recent history. This response is to the point in many

illustrative ways. I agree that Democrats lack a comprehensive plan. But this isn't necessarily a fatal flaw. An

incomplete plan can be better than an overly simplistic or wrongheaded, complete one. I also agree that the

Democrats are beholden to special interests. But so are the Republicans, as Belgareth would remind us. So it's

meaningless to point out that either side is. But it is logical, and quite meaningful to compare lists of who each

is beholden to. I'll save that for another post.

Lastly, I agree that Bush and company can seem

clear eyed (e.g, "Nobody ever won a war by being sensitive!") Many would vehemently disagree with us here. But for

the sake of argument, there may be certain simple facets of national and international events they are more clear

about (assuming they are genuine, also for the sake of argument). But it's easy to seem clear eyed if you

only look at the most simplistic, black and white portrayals of issues (e.g., "sensitive war vs. tough war";

"you're with us or against us"). If you see the multi-leveled, multi-contextual world as entirely composed of

plainly right/wrong and true/false ideas, and simplistic ideas at that; then whatever you do see most clearly will

be merely artificially clear, in some sense. Arguably the most "clear", black and white thinking could be the

least helpful (Therefore it's OK to be be insensitive to our potential allies who might otherwise share our

risks (such as not finding WMD), responsibilities and burdens). The smaller your perspective, and the fewer facts

you consider, the easier it sometimes is to organize it all into an "internally coherent" whole; especially if you

are willing to throw away a lot more insights and facts along the way. What that means is that internal consistency

and simple overarching ideas can seem easier to achieve.

Consider this simplistic, right-leaning political line

of thinking (a paraphrase of Bush in a TV interview): "We're tough on badguys, and we'll keep being tough until

the bad guys are gone! Our citizens must make sacrifices. Freedom has a price. Period!" The advantage of this

simplistic rhetoric is that it covers Bush's foreign, domestic, and economic policy in one fell swoop. Wow! It's

easy to understand, and helps us organize complexities to make a simple world. How satisfying! "A unifying plan for

every citizen!" Now there's an idea folks can get behind!! On the other hand, this stance is fatally flawed in its

subtleties. But when considered in isolation as a counterstance, the correct subtleties don't arouse the

passions that the stance itself does. Therefore the problem in reaching a more successful line of thinking is to

reframe the whole issue in a more compelling way. But this is extremely difficult, since the initial

framing aims at extremely primitive emotions. This kind of pandering to base emotions is an essential part of the

inherent appeal of right winged rhetoric. Politics (like pheromones!) are in no small way a battle for people's

most primitive feelings, and the Republicans are currently doing better at this. Consider the emotional power of

raising the terror alert, for example.

Can you characterize the two parties as different in this respect? I

think so. That again highlights the problem the Democrats have -- to clarify and simplify the things they believe

they have seen with a broader and deeper vision, and therefore relate emotionally to people better. This takes a lot

of work intellectually (especially since some of their ideas are newer or more "progressive"); and requires skill at

role-modeling the appropriate passions; as well as communication skills. Each party has its own challenges,

strengths and shortcomings. In fact, many who criticise Bush do so on grounds fairly independent from which party he

belongs to. I agree with Bel that neither provides the answer. I see the Democrats as at best a party in transition.

Republicans may be more internally consistent, but may be externally less appropriate to changing times. :type:

[belgareth]

The biggest problem in the

democrats outlook is the trap many have fallen into. The issues are too complex with too many potential variables to

fully encompass. At some point you have to simplify or you do like Carter did, ponder forever and never really do

anything.

[DrSmellThis]

True. At various points you have to simplify to go/no-go, such as when your advisor interrupts you to

say New York and Washington DC have been attacked! But a black and white approach is the worst one to initially

approach something with. That is the problem of prejudices and rigidities of various kinds. And when your world

view starts to unravel around the edges, it's also time to see bigger things. Now is a time for both passionate

simplicity and largeness of vision, I would suggest. No party has claimed this sound approach as their own yet. But

that is our challenge.

If you are missing pieces of the puzzle, you can't always see the simplest picture

better by throwing away still more pieces and just working with a partial picture. Often thinking bigger is the

quickest road to elegance, or appropriate simplicity; as well as to sound and committed decisions.

Ultimately, in fact, the greatest simplicity is in seeing the bigger picture. This is a crucial philosophical issue

at stake in contemporary politics; in some sense the philosophical issue.

For example, we are

increasingly challenged to take a long term, global, earth based, cooperative and sustainable approach given our

current, rapidly shrinking world; and given the futurist space, life-support and resource issues the earth is

presenting to us. These issues are all about the bigger picture, or the need for holism. There are, of course, other

realms in which we are called to be more holistic, such as in the realms of increasingly interacting and/or clashing

spiritual approaches and religions.

According to Plato (the father of modern secular politics) and most other

philosophers, grasping more of a potential whole is the essence of wisdom, or philosophy. This would also be true,

then, of political philosophy. The lack of this wisdom lies at the heart of our political thinking these days.

[DrSmellThis]

At some point you have to simplify or you do like Carter did, ponder forever and never really do

anything.Pondering forever without doing anything is not pondering well. Thinking without doing (or talking

or feeling, or intuiting) is just another form of small mindedness.

But haven't we had all the cultural

lobotomies we need? Isn't our addiction to stimulation lobotomizing? How about religious fundamentalism; the mental

paralysis of fear; and excess political partisanship? How about the aforementioned black and white thinking that

dominates American policy these days?

You are doubtless one of the better thinkers here, Belgareth. But it is

worth noting that people who do think poorly or unproductively love to tell others they "think too much". There's

something to be said for figuring stuff out.

[belgareth]

Pondering

forever without doing anything is not pondering well. Thinking without doing (or talking or feeling, or intuiting)

is just another form of small mindedness.

But haven't we had all the cultural lobotomies we need? Isn't our

addiction to stimulation lobotomizing? How about religious fundamentalism; the mental paralysis of fear; and excess

political partisanship? How about the aforementioned black and white thinking that dominates American policy these

days?

You are doubtless one of the better thinkers here, Belgareth. But it is worth noting that people who do

think poorly or unproductively love to tell others they "think too much". There's something to be said for figuring

stuff out.Exactly right. You are pointing out one of the worst, most dangerous flaws of the Bush camp. If it

doesn't fit into their philosophy they reject it out of hand. A couple of good examples are stem cell research and

the Kyoto protocols. Rather than accept the fact that there are issues to be worked out, they reject them out of

hand to the detriment of society as a whole. They have even gone so far as to try and silence their detractors by

censoring sciencetific debate. It does not solve the problem, only makes the solutions more painful in the long

run.

At the same time, the dems attempt to solve every problem by throwing money at it (Yes it is an

over-simplification, but the problem is real) and by give-aways. That simply creates additional burden on the most

productive segments of society, which is a dis-incentive to increased productivity, without really helping the most

needy except in the short term. Giving the masses bread and circuses is not the answer either.

The problem stems

from our system that encourages politics to be based on the next election, they never have a reason to think beyond

the next four years. We need to change the mind set of our leadership to look at the problems and solve them rather

than to simply talk to get votes.

Religion has no place in running a government. It is no less mind numbing than

the over-stimulation and apathy caused by too much television. I don't want to side track your very valid points by

starting a religious debate so will leave it at that. I do believe that we need to put far more emphasis on teaching

people to think ofr themselves rather than to follow any group or belief system like a flock of sheeps to

slaughter.

[Whitehall]

"Religion has no place in running a government."

This has merit but history teaches us that a civilization

without a religous bond is decadent. We denigrate the religous faith of others at our own risk.

I personally

profess no creed (OK, I can't stomach any of that mumbo-jumbo that passes for theology) but a society WITHOUT

religion scares me. What our liberals seem to want is a society were religion is replaced with legalisms and

political correctness. I don't think that will work. The Communists couldn't.

Ours might be a time when a

new religion is begin born, one that will build a faith and a moral system based on our so much greater

understanding of human nature and the place of humans on our planet and in our universe.

The religious

impulse is universal in humans. There must be a reason and we suppress it at our risk.

Unfortunately, where

we're headed seems more and more like "Brave New World" every day.

[belgareth]

"Unfortunately, where we're

headed seems more and more like "Brave New World" every day." I'll agree with that point but will argue that part

of the problem is the religions.

I didn't say a there was a problem with being religious. I said that it had no

place in running a government. Look at this silliness over the ten commandments placed outside a courthouse. The

argument is religious, both sides of it! From my perspective, it doesn't matter in the least if it remains or is

moved. The entire thing is a waste of time and money. Same on the subject of prayer in school. In short, it is not

the business of government any way you look at it.

A society without principles scares me almost as much as a

deeply religious society scares me. Over the centuries, religion has played a major role in the formation of our

civilization but as also created and continues to create hatred and suffering. Respect for human rights is not

universally tied to religion or even a necessary part of it. Despite our basically religious foundations we have

committed crimes against our fellow man innumerable times, often in the name of our religions. Bad decisions are

made in government almost daily because our religions require it. The pope publicly states that government officials

cannot participate in their religion because they choose to do what they believe is right rather than follow

doctrine that ultimately harms millions of people.

Show me a religion that is compatible with the needs of a

changing, evolving society on an ever shrinking planet and I'll recant my position. But I don't believe you can do

that.

[koolking1]

"Pussy. He’s just handing

the election over to Bush."

I think the average Democrat decided long ago that Bush needed to be defeated at

all costs. Then they decided that they needed to pull together and get someone up there who could win and they

picked the wrong guy. I think now that most Democrats have decided that this election is a foregone conclusion with

Bush winning. I was in New Jersey this long holiday weekend and the Asbury Park Press did a poll and, although I

can't remember the exact results, it concluded that about half the voters favor Bush, and nearly equal amounts now

favor either Kerry or Nader. If this poll is at all accurate it means that half the Democrats have given up on

Kerry (I know I have). The next 4 years are going to be very strange ones indeed.

[a.k.a.]

I think the

average Democrat decided long ago that Bush needed to be defeated at all costs. Then they decided that they needed

to pull together and get someone up there who could win and they picked the wrong guy.

That too.

There's so much effort not to alienate the conservatives that they've lost sight of the liberals.

Another

issue is that elections are about constituencies.
The Republicans can always rely on the Christian Right so long

as they stand firm against abortion.
The Democrats used to be able to rely on organized labor and Black voters.

But union membership is only about 12% of the workforce and younger Black voters aren't registering.
Instead of

being proactive and trying to build their constituencies (registering Blacks, being more agressive on women's

issues, pushing for national health care, etc.), the Dems are trying to compete for those middle class white voters

that haven't already gone over to Bush.



If this poll is at all accurate it means that

half the Democrats have given up on Kerry (I know I have).
Well, I haven't lost sight of who I'm voting

AGAINST. I just wish there was somebody to vote FOR.


The next 4 years are going to be very

strange ones indeed.

The world economic situatation is not good. Even with a world class president,

we should expect a very bumpy ride. But when you have a (dry?) drunk at the wheel...

[Holmes]

If this poll is

at all accurate it means that half the Democrats have given up on Kerry.

Sad.


The next

4 years are going to be very strange ones indeed.

If it's Bush & Co., strange at best.

[belgareth]

Don't give up on it yet. Both

parties get a boost in ratings right after their conventions. Give things a couple weeks to settle out. Bush could

screw things up again and the war in Iraq is forcing a lot of people to reconsider their stance. Remember, it ain't

over til the fat lady sings. Nothing is decided until the ballots are all counted.

[Whitehall]

The big issue that needs to be discussed is how much responsibility does the USA need to take in preserving world

order.

Bush has shown that he is willing to lead the US into big commitments that aim for major changes an,

hopefully, improvements.

Kerry SEEMS to be saying that we can do less and either strive for a less ordered

world than Bush would like or expect other countries to do more at our suggestion.

Do we sit back and hope

the rest of the world (Russia, France?) contributes to our protection and the protection of the world economic

order?

Maybe we should sit back, or maybe the world doesn't need more order and protection but I haven't

heard a cogent argument from Kerry and the Democrats on that position. Buchanan on the right offers something like

that but the left is inarticulate. They only hate Bush and dispise America.

At least the Republican

Convention was clear in arguing that there is a big threat and that aggressive action is needed to oppose it.

Further, Kerry has not been aggressive about foreign affairs during his Senate career.

I doubt Kerry wants to

join this debate because he knows how most Americans lean.

[DrSmellThis]

Everyone agrees that we would

love things to be nice and "orderly" on the Earth (which sometimes has its own "ideas" on the issue). There is an

important question in there; and a huge question. But we'd need to define clearly and carefully what it means to

"preserve world order"; and for that matter, what is "world order" and "disorder"? Further, what is the "world

economic order"? And what does it mean to "commit" to world order? And what does it mean to "preserve" it, as

opposed, to, say, "implement" it? These are not trivial questions when we are talking about changing the world;

especially if we are talking about, in any sense, unilaterally changing it; or changing it without the other

"tenants'" consent. I'm confused about what Kerry said to make it seem like he is "striving for a less ordered

world", but hopefully defining our terms will help.

Arnold talked a bit about "the world order". Given what you

said about your favorite speeches, perhaps you had this in mind regarding the Republicans addressing the world order

at the convention: When Arnold said that "if you believe this country, not the United Nations, is

the best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican", in the context of the speech, to me he

implied something to the effect that Democracy in all it's greatness comes from America (evoking

powerful patriotic emotions in the listener); and therefore America is best qualified to say what democracy should

be around the world, and is best qualified (has the right? responsibility?) to implement democracy around the world,

as opposed to the United Nations. (again appealing to the passions of patriotism, almost making you want to accept

what he is saying on a primal level).

[DrSmellThis]

Here's a news item regarding

some of the other emotional devices Arnold used in his speech,

http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=2256828 (http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=2256828)
...and

here's the text of the actual speech. It is definitely illustrative of the politics of emotion:



SCHWARZENEGGER: Thank you very much. Thank you. What a greeting. What a greeting. Wow. This is like

winning an Oscar -- as if I would know. Speaking of acting, one of my movies was called "True Lies." And that's

what the Democrats should have called their convention.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, on

the way up here to the podium, a gentleman came up to me and said, "Governor, you are as good a politician as you

were an actor." What a cheap shot.
(LAUGHTER)
Cannot believe it.


Anyway, my fellow Americans, this is an amazing moment for me. To think that a once-scrawny boy

from Austria could grow up to become governor of the state of California and then stand here...


(APPLAUSE)
... then stand here in Madison Square Garden and speak on behalf of the

president of the United States -- that is an immigrant's dream.
(APPLAUSE)


SCHWARZENEGGER: It is the American dream.
You know, I was born in Europe and I've

traveled all over the world. And I can tell you that there is no place, no country, more compassionate, more

generous, more accepting and more welcoming than the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)


As long as I live, I will never forget that day 21 years ago when I raised my right hand and took

the oath of citizenship. Do you know how proud I was? I was so proud that I walked around with an American flag

around my shoulders all day long.
(APPLAUSE)
Tonight, I want to talk to you about

why I'm even more proud to be an American -- why I'm proud to be a Republican -- and why I believe this country is

in good hands.
(APPLAUSE)
When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria.


SCHWARZENEGGER: I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw Communism with my own eyes. I remember the

fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector.
Growing up, we were told, "Don't look the

soldiers in the eye. Just look straight ahead." It was a common belief that Soviet soldiers could take a man out of

his own car and ship him back to the Soviet Union as slave labor.
Now, my family didn't have a

car. But one day we were in my uncle's car. It was near dark as we came to the Soviet checkpoint. I was a little

boy. I was not an action hero back then.
(LAUGHTER)
But I remember. I remember how

scared I was that the soldiers would pull my father or my uncle out of the car and I would never see them again. My

family and so many others lived in fear of the Soviet boot. Today, the world no longer fears the Soviet Union, and

it is because of the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: As a kid

I saw the socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left. Now, don't misunderstand me, I love

Austria, and I love the Austrian people.
But I always knew America was the place for me. In school,

when the teacher would talk about America, I would daydream about coming here. I would daydream about living here. I

would sit there and watch for hours American movies transfixed by my heroes like John Wayne.


(APPLAUSE)
Everything about America seemed so big to me, so open, so possible.


I finally arrived here in 1968. What a special day it was. I remember I arrived here with empty

pockets but full of dreams, full of determination, full of desire.
The presidential campaign was in

full swing. I remember watching the Nixon-Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend of mine who spoke German and

English translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which I had just left.


SCHWARZENEGGER: But then I heard Nixon speak. Then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free

enterprise, getting the government off your back, lowering the taxes and strengthening the military.


(APPLAUSE)
Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air.


I said to my friend, I said, "What party is he?"
My friend said, "He's a

Republican."
I said, "Then I am a Republican."
(APPLAUSE)
And I

have been a Republican ever since. And trust me -- and trust me -- in my wife's family, that's no small

achievement.
(APPLAUSE)
But I am proud to be with the party of Abraham Lincoln,

the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of Ronald Reagan, and the party of George W. Bush.


(APPLAUSE)
To my fellow immigrants listening tonight, I want you to know how

welcome you are in this party. We Republicans admire your ambition. We encourage your dreams. We believe in your

future.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: And one thing I learned about America is that

if you work hard and if you play by the rules, this country is truly open to you. You can achieve anything.


(APPLAUSE)
Everything I have, my career, my success, my family, I owe to America.


(APPLAUSE)
In this country, it doesn't make any difference where you were born.

It doesn't make any difference who your parents were. It doesn't make any difference if you're like me and

couldn't even speak English until you were in your 20s. America gave me opportunities, and my immigrant dreams came

true.
I want other people to get the same chances I did, the same opportunities. And I believe they

can. That's why I believe in this country, that's why I believe in this party, and that's why I believe in this

president.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: Now, many of you out there tonight are

Republican like me in your hearts and in your beliefs. Maybe you're from Guatemala. Maybe you're from the

Philippines. Maybe you're from Europe or the Ivory Coast. Maybe you live in Ohio, Pennsylvania or New Mexico.


(APPLAUSE)
And maybe -- just maybe -- you don't agree with this party on every

single issue. I say to you tonight that I believe that's not only OK, but that's what's great about this country.


(APPLAUSE)
Here we can respectfully disagree and still be patriotic, still be

American and still be good Republicans.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: My fellow

immigrants, my fellow Americans, how do you know if you are a Republican? Well, I tell you how. If you believe that

government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican.


(APPLAUSE)
If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a

member of an interest group, then you are a Republican.
(APPLAUSE)
If you believe

your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican.


(APPLAUSE)
If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for

the progress of our children, then you are a Republican.
(APPLAUSE)
If you believe

this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican.


(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe that we must

be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican.
(APPLAUSE)


Now, there's another way you can tell you're a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise,

faith in the resourcefulness of the American people and faith in the U.S. economy. And to those critics who are so

pessimistic about our economy, I say: Don't be economic girlie-men.
(APPLAUSE)


SCHWARZENEGGER: The U.S. economy remains the envy of the world. We have the highest economic growth

of any of the world's major industrialized nations. Don't you remember the pessimism of 20 years ago, when the

critics said Japan and Germany are overtaking the U.S.? Ridiculous.
Now, they say that India and

China are overtaking us. Don't you believe it. We may hit a few bumps, but America always moves ahead. That's what

Americans do.
(APPLAUSE)
We move prosperity ahead.
(APPLAUSE)


We move prosperity ahead. We move freedom ahead. And we move people ahead.
And

under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, America's economy is moving ahead in spite of a recession they

inherited and in spite of the attack on our homeland.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER:

Now, the other party says that we have two Americas. Don't you believe that either. I have visited our troops in

Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Germany, and all over the world. I've visited our troops in California, where they train

before they go overseas. I have visited our military hospitals. And I tell you this, that our men and women in

uniform do not believe there are two Americas. They believe we are one America, and they are fighting for it.


(APPLAUSE)
We are one America, and President Bush is defending it with all his

heart and soul.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: That's what I admire most about the

president. He's a man of perseverance. He's a man of inner strength. He is a leader who doesn't flinch, who

doesn't waiver, and does not back down.
(APPLAUSE)
My fellow Americans, make no

mistake about it: Terrorism is more insidious than Communism, because it yearns to destroy not just the individual,

but the entire international order.
The president did not go into Iraq because the polls told him

it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite. But leadership isn't about polls.


(APPLAUSE)
It's about making decisions you think are right and then standing

behind those decisions.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: That's why America is safer

with George W. Bush as president.
(APPLAUSE)
He knows you don't reason with

terrorists. You defeat them. He knows you can't reason with people blinded by hate. You see, they hate the power of

the individual. They hate the progress of women. They hate the religious freedom of others. And they hate the

liberating breeze of democracy.
But, ladies and gentlemen, their hate is no match for America's

decency.
(APPLAUSE)
We are the America that sends out the Peace Corps volunteers

to teach our village children. We are the America that sends out the missionaries and doctors to raise up the poor

and the sick.
SCHWARZENEGGER: We are the America that gives more than any other country to fight

AIDS in Africa and the developing world.
(APPLAUSE)
And we are the America that

fights not for imperialism, but for human rights and democracy.
(APPLAUSE)
You

know, when the Germans brought down the Berlin Wall, America's determination helped wield the sledgehammers. And

when that lone, young Chinese man stood in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square, America stood with him. And

when Nelson Mandela smiled in election victory after all those years in prison, America celebrated, too.


We are still the lamp lighting the world, especially those who struggle. No matter in what labor

camp they slave, no matter in what injustice they're trapped, they hear our call. They see our light. And they feel

the pull of our freedom.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: They come here, as I did,

because they believe -- they believe in us. They come because their hearts say to them, as mine did, "If only I can

get to America." You know, someone once wrote, "There are those who say that freedom is nothing but a dream." They

are right. It's the American dream.
(APPLAUSE)
No matter the nationality, no

matter the religion, no matter the ethnic background, America brings out the best in people.


(APPLAUSE)
And as governor -- as governor of the great state of California, I see

the best in Americans every day.
(APPLAUSE)
I see the best in Americans every day,

our police, our firefighters, our nurses, doctors and teachers, our parents.
And what about the

extraordinary men and women who have volunteered to fight for the United States of America?


(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: I have such great respect for them and their heroic

families.
Let me tell you about the sacrifice and the commitment that I have seen first-hand. In

one of the military hospitals I visited, I met a young guy who was in bad shape. He'd lost a leg, he had a hole

through his stomach, and his shoulder had been shot through. And the list goes on and on and on.
I

could tell that there was no way he could ever return to combat. But when I asked him, "When do you think you'll

get out of the hospital?" He said, "Sir, in three weeks."
And do you know what he said to me then?

He said he was going to get a new leg, and then he was going to get some therapy, and then he was going to go back

to Iraq and fight alongside his buddies.
(APPLAUSE)
And you know what he said to

me then? You know what he said to me then?
SCHWARZENEGGER: He said, "Arnold, I'll be back."


(APPLAUSE)
Well, ladies and gentlemen, America is back -- back from the attack on

our homeland, back from the attack on our economy, and back from the attack on our way of life. We're back because

of the perseverance, character and leadership of the 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush.


(APPLAUSE)
My fellow Americans, I want you to know that I believe with all my

heart that America remains the great idea that inspires the world. It's a privilege to be born here. It's an honor

to become a citizen here. It's a gift to raise your family here, to vote here, and to live here.


SCHWARZENEGGER: Our president, George W. Bush, has worked hard to protect and preserve the American

dream for all of us. And that's why I say, send him back to Washington for four more years.


SCHWARZENEGGER WITH AUDIENCE: Four more years. Four more years. Four more years. Four more years.

Four more years. Four more years.
SCHWARZENEGGER: Thank you, America. Thank you, and God bless you

all.
Thank you.

[koolking1]

time to start gearing up

for the Arnold-Hillary slugfest in '08.

[DrSmellThis]

:lol:
.........

[Pancho1188]

time to start

gearing up for the Arnold-Hillary slugfest in '08.Then we just need the good Reverend Jesse Jackson, Colin

Powell, etc. to run again as a third party, and we'd have the most interesting presidential race in history: first

woman, first foreign-born citizen, and first African-American...wow...

...not only that---and correct me if I'm

wrong---but wouldn't that also mean three people whose primary focus in life hadn't been politics until much later

in life (Actor, Reverend, First Lady and whatever else she was before that...not sure, maybe it was

political...........okay, so scratch the founding fathers in case they apply)? Interesting...

...as impossible

as that seems, I wouldn't mind seeing the first and last happening...the middle, however, is risky due to

conspiracy theorists that someone could technically circumvent the system and become President almost like The

Manchurian Candidate...but I think that the current political system prevents someone from destroying the

government...

[a.k.a.]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0907-03.htm

"...The “anybody but Bush” sentiment is strong

this year and the Democrats are hoping that will keep their base engaged. It’s a gamble since campaigns are won by

energizing your base to help move large blocks of voters, not by a campaign of defeatist docility, designed to

influence a few undecided voters.

Ironically, swing voters seem to agree that what they’re hearing from Kerry

is not persuasive. In a Pennsylvania focus group with these voters, the Washington Post discovered, everyone thought

Bush was more specific in laying out this agenda and they liked that, even if they didn’t agree with him. But, “In

more than six hours of discussion over two separate nights, [swing voters] are hard-pressed to say anything positive

about…either candidate.” Still, you don’t see the Republicans alienating their base by abandoning their core

values in order to influence the swings...

...Woo the swing votes, Screw the base: Lose the election? --

the awkward rhyme may foreshadow poetic justice for a Democratic Presidential candidate who is unable or unwilling

to distinguish himself from the most extreme right-winger ever to occupy the White House."

[DrSmellThis]

That is certainly one

reasonable perspective. Motivating one's base is more important than converting fence sitters. I saw (progressive

Democrat) Dennis Kucinich speak out here in Oregon at an Earth Day celebration, and was amazed at his ability to

whip a young, progressive-oriented crowd into a frenzy quickly (way better than Nader, or even Arnold with his

crowd). It was like measuring the acceleration for zero to sixty in a drag race. With almost no introductory

remarks, he said in a rapid fire fashion numbers of things the crowd wanted to hear, with a look of glee on his

face. He overwhelmed them with one articulate policy statement after another; statements that were essentially the

opposite of the incumbent's. After about a minute with people's eyes getting bigger, people couldn't stand it any

more and just started screaming, as if what he was saying was like oxygen to them, and/or too good to be true.



The fascinating thing about Kucinich's campaign was that he actually received more contributions (as opposed to

more dollars) from private citizens than any other Democrat up until he dropped out; including Kerry! Unfortunately

for his supporters, these were small (like an average of $20.00) contributions. Were campaign finance reforms in

place (say, limiting contributions to $100.00 per person, or basing limits on the average American's ability to

make them, and doing the rest with public money -- that's a concept, no?), he may well have won the nomination.

He certainly demonstrated an ability to motivate the grass roots, and earned the support of small contributors. The

trouble was he couldn't afford to campaign much on his budget, compared to the other candidates; as he refused PAC

money. There's a concept for Bel and you other political process reformers: Campaigning for president without "soft

money" or PAC money!

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dennis_Ku

cinich_Government_Reform.htm (http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Government_Reform.htm)
http://w

ww.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00003572 (http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00003572)

Since Democrats are significantly more

progressive than Republicans anyway, their challenge is always partly to, literally, lead with

strength of thought and conviction; that is, to stay a little ahead of the crowd, arouse their conviction, and nudge

them forward compellingly. People should rationally expect that from Democrats anyway, and not be shocked when they

see it. Though polls are useful, that is the problem with relying on polls inappropriately. Some things are such

that typical folks don't think about them much or don't know much about them; and shouldn't be expected to have

well-formed, permanent opinions. You have to enlighten them and wake them up a little bit. You as a leader are the

one they would be turning to for inspiration and guidance. On the other hand, you don't want to be too much more

extreme in any direction than your own base. Kucinich will have to build a bigger base for himself to be successful.

But since he is no friend of big business, this will be difficult.

[DrSmellThis]

And in case there is still any

question as to whether, how unabashedly, and to what extent, that the Republicans pander to the basest

emotions (e.g., survival fear) better than the Democrats -- check out today's remarkable news item:



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/0

7/cheney.terror/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/07/cheney.terror/index.html)

My psychologist hat goes off to them! :box: :box: I wonder who their campaign

"psy-ops czar" is?

[koolking1]

again though, too timid a

response from the Dems. The response should have been:

"What?? Is this VP out of his mind??, the first

attack happened on their watch - they have not proven themselves capable of defending our country and they are

brazen enough to proclaim only themselves as capable of preventing future attacks- they are insane!!!"

[a.k.a.]

My psychologist

hat goes off to them! :box: :box: I wonder who their campaign "psy-ops czar" is?


Karl

Rove

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471423270/102-3894211-2927316?v=glance



http://www.bushsbrain.com/

[Whitehall]

Kucinich's problem was not money so much as the fact that his policy positions were grossly out of touch with the

broad majority of American voters. Especially the ones who worked hard enough to afford more than a $20

donation.

Money in political campaigning is a mixed issue. Certainly a candidate needs enough to get his

word out and to cover his travel etc. But have you ever, EVER heard any voter say that he or she sold their vote?

I haven't - most people who vote do indeed think over the issues and vote their enlightened self-interest.

A

solid position conveyed once trumps endless repetition of a bad idea. To believe otherwise is to deny the

legitimacy of democracy.

[DrSmellThis]

* Very illustrative! Aren't you suggesting I'd be more patriotic (i.e., believe more in the

legitimacy of democracy) to not question the current de facto political process, as to whether it might keep

more grassroots candidates out of the mix? You've learned a thing or two about political rhetoric! The Democrats

need to learn to appeal to patriotism too! :)

So I'll attempt to set an example in replying, and be patriotic

in kind: Sometimes our society might veer a little off its course of democracy (like when corporations took over

American culture, economics, and arguably, political processes in the mid to late 20th century) and you have to

steer it back to a more democratic, American place. There are legitimate questions about the degree of democracy of

our particular de facto system at this time; such as the one you yourself raised about politicians pandering

to special interests. Also, democracy for poor people and rich people can be two different things in hundreds of

ways (e.g., legal rights. Aren't you getting sick of seeing Michael Jackson's lawyers whine about yet another

"viscious accusation" from another child trying to "take down a celebrity"?). I'd never question the legitimacy of

Democracy. I would, on the other hand, question oligarchy and class rule as preferred forms of government. To be a

"good emotional politician" I should raise the counter question: Wouldn't supporting these types of systems, which

have infiltrated ours, be a rejection of democracy? Real democracy isn't pleasant for would be oligarchs and

classists, after all; so such elements are going to try to corrupt it from time to time. When it happens, as it has,

we have to be strong; have integrity as Americans; and resist such insidious attempts to corrupt our

freedoms. We are blessed as Americans, and democracy is our dearest blessing.

And ultimately, preserving

democracy is the best weapon against terrorism. All humans respect freedom and democracy with some part of

themselves, a part of themselves which will resist bringing it harm. The safety inherent in preserving true

democracy is immeasurably greater, and more lasting, than that resulting from the most powerful military aggression

and capabilities. In fact, it is no exaggeration whatsoever that democracy is the fundamental guarantee to

our safety. IMO, a big reason we're not getting attacked more, despite our current poor standing around the world,

is that there is a lot of hope around the world that the American system will correct itself. It's the same reason

there aren't more Oklahoma City types of tragedies. For example, note that Al Sadr and his followers, some of the

most dangerous, extreme, fundamentalist elements in Iraq, have been calmed in no insignificant portion by the

promise of participation in their own democracy (it surely wasn't just the threat of death). How remarkable is

that? Democracy is it's own security, and we lose sight of this at our own peril. To know this is a great American

joy.

* I'm not sure we can say those who can't afford larger contributions don't work hard. I recognize that

that is the traditional conservative (also classist) way of judging the situation. But there are an awful lot of

extremely poor, even impoverished hard working Americans; even an awful lot of brilliant, multitalented and/or

multi-degreed hard working poor Americans, for whom large donations to political candidates are not in their

responsible budget (One fifth of Americans don't have health insurance, for example.). Wealth can never be an

accurate reflection of merit or value on a planet of limited resources, but for many other reasons too. Should these

Americans' voices be relatively insignficant? Is that democracy?

But you raised an important issue: In general,

can money in politics, such as corporate money, affect Democracy adversely? In particular, you raised the sub

question -- can it affect voting? I have assumed it did, and know that there has been a lot of research on the

effects of political advertising, for example. Am I understanding you correctly that it can't or doesn't?

*

And not to veer off topic, but I agree Kucinich is not a centrist, as clear as his vision might be on things.

Kucinich is a progressive Democrat. But IMHO, he comes from a lot more solid of a place than Nader, who also has

some good ideas and understandings, even to many of his enemies. "Grossly out of touch" might be a little strong. As

I said, you want any good politician to have some ideas others haven't already beat to death, which means they'll

be technically "out of touch" in that respect. The whole point of progressive thinking is to be slightly ahead of

one's time in terms of the status quo mindset; but in step with one's time in terms of what mindset is needed. But

I don't think that means a progressive candidate can't win an election. The Earth and all it's changing trends

will force it's residents to change some of their beliefs eventually. It already has started to in some small ways.

I accept that he is grossly "out of touch" with how conservatives believe. But might we need to wake up a little? A

lot of people around where I live have progressive types of beliefs, so it just seems normal to me.

[InternationalPlayboy]

But have you ever, EVER heard any voter say that he or she sold their vote? I haven't - most people who vote do

indeed think over the issues and vote their enlightened self-interest.



There was an instance

just a week or three ago where some guy got in trouble with the feds for auctioning off his vote on

eBay!

Edited to add link (http://forums.clublaurier.ca/viewtopic.php?t=1957). (I couldn't find the

original article I read a couple of weeks ago.)

[DrSmellThis]

:lol: Gotta love capitalism!

[metroman]

Just thought I'd throw this

into the mix:

25 Things We Now Know
Three Years After 911
By Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, The Crisis

Papers
9-4-4

The Republican Party -- in a shameless , all-too-obvious attempt to manipulate the tragedy

of 9/11 for partisan ends -- chose New York City for its nominating convention. Must have seemed like a great idea

at the time.

Their coming to Manhattan not only infuriates New Yorkers, who were badly played by Bush&Co.

after the attacks, but enables the rest of us in the country to use Ground Zero as the backdrop for examining the

gross failures and crimes of the Bush Administration since that tragic day in September 2001.

So, here is

an update* of things we've learned during the three years since 9/11 -- documented mostly from government papers

and respected journalistic accounts -- about the Administration that rules in our names. If you find this compendium

useful, you might want to make this list available to your friends and colleagues, especially to those still

uncertain which presidential candidate they will vote for ten weeks from now.

THE 9/11 ATTACKS/COVERUP



1. Immediately after the destruction of the Twin Towers, Bush's Environmental Protection Agency tested

the air in and around Ground Zero. Anxious Lower Manhattan residents, worried about possible airborne toxic

particles affecting them and especially their children, were assured by the EPA on September 18 that the tests

indicated it was safe for them to return to and live normal lives in their homes and apartments and businesses. It

wasn't until two years later that the EPA admitted that they had lied to New Yorkers: The Bush Administration knew

from their own test results that the toxicity revealed was WAY over the safe levels. Typical Bush&Co. pattern:

secrecy, lies, denial, coverup.

2. There is no evidence that Bush&Co. ordered Osama bin Laden -- who had

been on the CIA payroll in Afghanistan when he and his forces were battling the Soviet occupiers -- to launch

terrorist attacks on the U.S. Resurgent radical Islam is a genuine phenomenon, with its own religious and political

roots. There definitely are Bad Guys out there.

What is well-documented is that the highest circles around

Bush were quite aware in the Summer of 2001 -- as a result of fairly detailed intelligence frantically being passed

on to them by other governments in the months and weeks before 9/11-- that a massive terrorist attack was in the

works, which likely would involve hijacked airplanes aimed at icon American economic and political targets. (The

August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," talked about al-Qaida

wanting to strike the nation's capital, preparations for airline hijackings, casing of buildings in New York,

terrorists in the U.S. with explosives, etc.) Bush went to ground in Texas, the FBI told Ashcroft to stop flying

commercial jets, etc. The attacks finally came on 9/11.

Bush could have assumed command immediately;

instead, 27 minutes went by while he sat in a schoolroom and then posed for photos. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld,

somewhere on the Pentagon premises, was strangely missing from action, uninvolved in defending the country until

after the horrific events had unfolded. Even though the protocols were clear, NORAD could not reach Rumsfeld and did

not scramble jets until long after the horrific mass-murder attacks were over. When Bush did emerge from the school,

he claims he could not reach Cheney or the White House by phone. (Passengers using cell phones on the final doomed

jet had no problems reaching their loved ones and emergency centers all around the country.)

In short, the

key Administration officials responsible for protecting America, and coordinating its responses to attacks, were not

available, either out of incompetence and confusion or out of more nefarious motives. As Nina Moliver, a 9/11 sleuth

puts it, "On 9/11, there was a grand stall. A stall for time. I learned this from a glance at the findings of the

9/11 commission. How could ANYBODY miss it? Bush and Rumsfeld didn't 'fail' on Sept 11. They succeeded

masterfully." A bit far out, to be sure, but if the Bush circle knew something was coming that morning -- and

numerous others did, including the mayor of San Francisco -- it's certainly a theory that can't be ruled out.



3. We know that the future neo-conservative architects of Bush foreign/military policy, members of The Project

for The New American Century (PNAC), knew that their ideas were too extreme for most Americans to swallow. They

noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one,

absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

Again, there is no proof of

coordination by the Bush Administration with the al-Qaida terrorists who carried out the terrorist attacks, but

BushCheney and their closest aides were aware on 9/11 that they now had the "Pearl Harbor" that would clear the way

for their agenda to be realized.

4. We know that Bush and Cheney, early on, approached the leaders of the

House and Senate and urged them not to investigate the pre-9/11 activities of the Administration, because of

"national security." The coverup was beginning.

5. The 9/11 Commission examined how the intelligence

community screwed up the pre-9/11 intelligence -- thus effectively laying the blame on lower-level agents and

officials -- but says it won't issue its report on how the Bush Administration used or misused that information

until AFTER the election. The coverup continues. Many victims' families are furious.

6. We know that the

Bush Administration has been able to obtain whatever legislation it needs in its self-proclaimed "war on terror" by

utilizing, and hyping, the understandable fright of the American people. The USA PATRIOT Act -- composed of many

honorable initiatives, and many clearly unconstitutional provisions, cobbled together from those submitted over the

years by GOP hardliners and rejected as too extreme by Congress -- was presented almost immediately to a House and

Senate frightened by the 9/11 attacks and by the anthrax introduced into their chambers by someone still not

discovered. Ridge and Ashcroft emerge periodically to manipulate the public's fright by announcing another "terror"

threat, based on "credible" but unverified evidence; these announcements can be correlated almost exactly to when

Bush seems to need a headline to distract the public from yet another scandal or significant drop in the polls.



ATTACK ON IRAQ

7. We know that a cabal of ideologically-motivated Bush officials, on the rightwing

fringe of the Republican Party, were calling for a military takeover of Iraq as early as 1991. This elite group

included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Woolsey, Bolton, Khalizad and others, all of whom are now located in

positions of power in the Pentagon and White House, and, to a lesser extent, State Department.

They were

among the key founders of the Project for The New American Century (PNAC) in 1997; among their recommendations:

"pre-emptively" attacking other countries devoid of imminent danger to the U.S., abrogating agreed-upon treaties

when they conflict with U.S. goals, making sure no other country (or organization, such as the United Nations) can

ever achieve parity with the U.S., installing U.S.-friendly governments to do America's will, using tactical

nuclear weapons, and so on. In short, as they put it, the goal is "benevolent global hegemony" -- or, in layman's

English, a kind of neo-imperialism.

All of these extreme suggestions, once regarded as lunatic, are now

enshrined as official U.S. policy in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, published by

the Bush Administration in late-2002.

8. We know that the Bush Administration was planning to attack Iraq

long before 9/11, and that, even though Rumsfeld was told by his intelligence analysts that 9/11 was an al-Qaida

operation, he began dragging an attack on Iraq -- which had no significant contacts with bin Laden's network --

into the war planning. When the traditional intelligence agencies couldn't, or wouldn't, furnish the White House

with made-up "facts" to back up an attack on Iraq, Rumsfeld set up his own "intelligence" unit inside his office,

the Office of Special Plans, staffed it with political PNAC appointees, and, lo and behold, got the justifications

he wanted -- which cooked-"intelligence" turned out to be the lies and deceptions that took the U.S. into Iraq.



Note: Rumsfeld's secretive Office of Special Plans, with direct access to the Secretary of Defense and thus to

shaping policy toward Iraq and Iran, is implicated in the current, serious scandal involving possible treason

(passing classified material to foreign countries, in this case maybe Israel and Iran), with potential links to the

slimy double-agent Ahmad Chalabi and others.

9. We know that the Bush Administration felt that it could

not get Congressional and public support for its plan to attack Iraq if the true reasons were revealed -- to control

the massive Iraqi oil reserves, to obtain a military staging base in the region, and to use a U.S.-friendly


"democratic" government as a lever to alter the geopolitical situation in the Middle East and beyond. So,

according to Wolfowitz, it settled on the one justification they thought would work: accusing Saddam Hussein of

preparing to attack its neighbors and the United States with supposed massive stockpiles of "weapons of mass

destruction." Senators were lied to by Administration briefers, who told them Iraqi drone planes could drop

biochemical agents over American cities; Condoleezza Rice warned about "mushroom clouds" over New York and

Washington.

Millions of citizens across the globe, and world leaders among our own allies, warned the Bush

Administration that an attack on Iraq -- a weak country, with no military power to speak of -- was wrong, would

backfire on the U.S. and world peace, would enrage the Islamic world and produce more terrorist recruits, and would

lose America its reputation and its post-9/11 sympathy across the globe. But the Bush Administration had made the

essential decision to go to war a year before the invasion ("Fuck Saddam, Bush told three U.S. Senators in March of

2002. "We,re taking him out.) And, even though Saddam authorized the United Nations inspectors to return to Iraq to

complete their weapons survey, Bush was determined to go to car. Secretary of State Powell was dispatched to the

United Nations to outline the U.S. case and obtain authorization; his case was filled with laughably thin and phony

intelligence, and the U.N. demurred. Bush launched his attack.

10. We know that no WMDs were discovered.

No nuclear program. No missiles aimed at U.S. or British interests. No drone planes. No biochemical weaponry. Bush

and his spokesmen then attempted to change the rationale for the war away from those scary WMDs to an implication

that Saddam was part of the terrorist network that carried out the 9/11 attacks. There was no convincing proof

offered, merely the constant repetition of the non-existent al-Qaida tie -- so much so that the Big Lie technique

worked early on as 70% of Americans thought there must have been some tie-in to 9/11. The 9/11 Commission verified

that there was no such operative connection to al-Qaida. Bush publicly agreed, but Cheney and others even today

continue to suggest otherwise. When the American public stopped believing in the al-Qaida/Iraq lie, the rationale

for the war was switched again. Now the reason for the war was that Saddam Hussein was a terrible tyrant -- an

assertion everybody could agree on -- though why we toppled this guy and not a half dozen other equally as bad

dictators (some of them our close allies) was left unanswered.

10. We know that the predictions of our key

allies, and those millions in the streets who protested, have come true. The U.S., having had no "post-war" plan, is

bogged down in Iraq, facing a nationalist insurgency, and a rebellious religious faction of fighters, with no end in

sight; it has lost the countryside and is losing the cities as well. The U.S. has engineered an American-friendly

interim government that is locked into the reconstruction contracts that permit huge American corporations such as

Bechtel and Halliburton -- who, quite by coincidence, of course, are huge financial backers of the Bush

Administration -- to make out like bandits in that country, often with no-bid contracts. The U.S. has at least 14

military bases in Iraq, which it intends to continue using as a military/political lever in reshaping the

geopolitics of the Middle East -- regardless of the costs in lives and treasure, and not caring that its policies

with regard to the Palestinian/Israeli problem fan the flames of terrorism in that area of the world, and beyond.



AUTHORITARIAN MANEUVERINGS

11. We know that CIA Director George Tenet fell on his sword, taking

the thrust of the bad-intel blame away from Bush. Other elements inside the agency, outraged by Bush&Co. using them

as whipping-boys, then began leaking all sorts of damaging information about White House skulduggery. Elements in

the State Department, appalled at the neo-cons in control of U.S. military policy at the Pentagon, likewise leaked

information damaging to the extremists.

12. We know that once Bush assumed power, he moved to obtain

immunity for U.S. officials and troops from international war-crimes prosecutions, pulling America out of the

relevant treaties. We didn't know why at the time, but later, after our covert and overt behavior in Afghanistan

and Iraq and the tortures scandal erupted, we figured it out.

13. We know that Bush lawyers in the White

House and Pentagon (State Department attorneys did not agree) issued memoranda that outlined how Bush and other key

officials could avoid criminal prosecution for their wartime policies and for advocating use of "harsh interrogation

methods" (read: torture) of suspected terrorists at Guantánamo, and in Afghanistan, Iraq and other U.S. facilities

around the world. Ignoring the Founders' wise "separation of powers" -- designed to keep any leader or branch of

government from assuming total control of the levers of powers -- the lawyers claimed that whenever Bush acts as

"commander in chief" during "wartime," he is above the law. In common parlance, these are rationalizations for

authoritarian rule, by dictatorial decrees.

14. We know that the Pentagon was well aware of the tortures

at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere -- key military reports had been submitted -- but the issue was ignored until grisly

photographs and videotapes surfaced in public media documenting the "harsh interrogation methods"; some of those

methods resulted in a goodly number of deaths to prisoners under U.S. control. Several commissions reported that the

rot came from the top at the Pentagon, including Rumsfeld, but, by and large, only lower-level troops and officers

have been disciplined or charged. In the meantime, the humiliating and brutal treatment of Muslim men, women and

children in U.S. custody has reverberated throughout the Islamic world, helping create more and more converts to

terrorist organizations.

SCANDALS AT HOME

15. In two instances, the Bush Administration, for its

own political reasons, compromised American national security by naming key intelligence operatives -- one a CIA

agent, Valerie Plame, with important contacts in the shadowy world of weapons of mass destruction (outed by two

"senior Administration officials," apparently in retaliation for her husband's political comments); revealing the

name of a CIA agent is a felony. The other, more recently (apparently to show off how successful they were in their

anti-terrorism hunt), was a high-ranking mole close to bin Laden's inner circle, who could have kept the U.S.

informed as ongoing and future plans of al-Qaida. That's our anti-terrorism government at work.

16. We

know that Karl Rove -- Bush's senior political advisor, who along with Dick Cheney, manipulates Bush's strings --

has been instrumental in helping get the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" off the ground. Longtime GOP

operatives and major Bush donors supplied the money and organizing skill, and then let them loose with their lies --

with precious little skepticism displayed by the corporate-owned mass-media. Apparently, at least initially, the Big

Lie technique worked once again -- though now polls show the smears being doubted -- forcing Kerry to stop his

attacks on Bush domestic policies and concentrate on damage control. The Kerry campaign took a while to rev up its

counter-campaign, bringing in all sorts of eyewitnesses that documented the truth of his heroism in winning his

Vietnam medals. Even slimier charges are expected at any moment about Kerry's post-discharge opposition to that

war.

PROTECTING THE VOTE

17. We know that even though several large states -- among them,

California and Ohio -- have prohibited computer-voting machines from being used in the November election, unless

there is a voter-verified paper trail, most of the toss-up states will be using the touch-screen, unverified system.

This would be suspicious if Democrats or Republicans were in charge of those machines, but in this election it's

virtually all Republicans. The three largest makers of the machines are owned by far-right Republicans; those same

companies tabulate the results. Republican-leaning companies also control the testing of those machines. In short,

it smells rank -- especially inasmuch as it's been demonstrated how easily the software can be manipulated, without

anybody knowing -- and definitely looks as if the fix is in. The CEO of one of the companies, a major "Pioneer"

donor to the Bush campaign, promised Bush he would "deliver" his state to the GOP candidate, and Gov. Jeb Bush in

Florida has quashed all attempts to stop or alter computer-voting in his state. (Note: The GOP has urged all its

members in Florida to vote by absentee ballot, because the machines are "unreliable." Get the picture?)



18. We know that the GOP is trying, by hook or by crook, to lower the number of potential Democrat voters.

Attempts have been made to remove thousands of African-American citizens from the rolls (reminiscent of Florida in

2000, where anywhere from 47,000 to 90,000 black voters where disenfranchised), police agents have visited numerous

elderly black voters in their rural homes and warned them about possible violence at the polls, a GOP official in

Michigan talked about the need to "discourage" the vote in largely-black Detroit, GOP "observers" will stand outside

voting places in rural areas as possible intimidators of older black voters, GOP operatives registering new American

citizens filled out the paperwork for them and signed them up as Republicans, and so on.

19. We know that

Administration lawyers have issued memoranda making it possible for Bush to "postpone" the November election for

"anti-terrorist" reasons -- say, a major attack or "credible" threat of a major attack. Note: There has never been a

national election postponed, not even during the Civil War.

20. We know that Administration attorneys have

issued memoranda that would make it possible for Bush to be elected by partial voting. That is, he could be elected

by voters supporting him, even if citizens in pro-Kerry states were prohibited from voting or having their votes

counted. Again, the fig-leaf is "terrorism." If a "red alert" were to be issued for certain areas on November 2 --

say, the West Coast and New England states -- Bush could, under state-of-emergency declarations, "limit the

movement" of citizens in those areas, while the election proceeded as normal elsewhere. A truncated election would

be permitted, and, under this scheme, whoever had the most ballots would win.

STARVING THE GOVERNMENT



21. We know that the Bush Administration paid off its backers (and itself) by giving humongous tax breaks, for

10 years out, to the already wealthy and to large corporations. This was done at a time when the U.S. economy was in

recessionary doldrums and when the treasury deficit from those tax-breaks was growing even larger from Iraq war

costs. So far as we know, the Bush Administration has no plans for how to retire that debt and no real plan (other

than the discredited "trickle-down" theory) for restarting the economy and creating jobs. In 2004, it's clear that

whatever positive "trickle-down" effect the tax refunds may have provided, that impact is no more, and the (jobless)

"recovery" is slowing and starting to look recessional again. People need good-paying employment.

22. We

know that the HardRight conservatives who control Bush policy don't really care what kind of debt and deficits his

policies cause; in some ways, the more the better. They want to decimate and eviscerate popular social programs from

the New Deal/Great Society eras, including, most visibly, Head Start, Social Security, Medicare (and real drug

coverage for seniors), aspects of public education. Since these programs are so well-approved by the public, the

destruction will be carried out stealthily with the magic words of "privatization," "deregulation," "choice" and so

on, and by going to the public and saying that they'd love to keep the programs intact but they have no alternative

but to cut them, given the deficit, weak economy and "anti-terrorist" wars abroad.

23. We know that Bush

environmental policy -- dealing with air and water pollution, national park systems, and so on -- is an unmitigated

disaster, more or less giving free rein to corporations whose bottom line does better when they don't have to pay

attention to the public interest.

24. We know from "insider" memoirs and reports by former Bush

Administration officials -- Joseph DeIulio, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, et al. -- that the public interest plays

little role in the formulation of policy inside the Bush Administration. The motivating factors are greed and

control and remaining in political power. Further, they say, there is little or no curiosity to think outside the

political box, or even to hear other opinions -- in other words, don't bother me with facts, my mind's made up.

Some of this non-curiosity may be based in fundamentalist religious, even Apocalyptic, beliefs.

25.

Finally (although we could continue forever detailing the crimes and misdemeanors of this corrupt, incompetent

Administration), we know that more and more, the permanent-war policy abroad and police-state tactics at home --

with the shredding of Constitutional rights designed to protect citizens from a potential repressive government --

are taking us into a kind of American fascism at home and an imperial foreign policy overseas.

As a

result, we are beginning to see more alliances between liberal/left forces and libertarians/traditional

conservatives horrified that their party has been hijacked by extreme ideologues. If Bush loses his bid for a second

term, it will come less from what we progressives do and more from those moderate-to-conservative Republicans and

Libertarians, who cannot abide what Bush&Co. have done to their party, their movement, and to this country.





* To read the previous "Things We've Learned Since 9/11" assessments in 2002 and 2003, see


http://www.bushwatch.net/weinersept.htm
here and


http://crisispapers.org/Editorials/25-things-we-know.htm



http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/25-things.htm

[Pancho1188]

Nice

summary of some alternative press about the current administration, for those interested. Great information, Metro!

I was trying to keep it on the political analysis issue, however, to see if we could shed some light on what's

happening with Politics in America; in particular, with the use of emotion as a political tool. Your post would make

a great discussion or thread on its own merit.
Well, you could bring it right back to political

analysis...this guy obviously is using similar tactics that Kerry is using. We discussed this earlier:

"If you

find this compendium useful, you might want to make this list available to your friends and colleagues, especially

to those still uncertain which presidential candidate they will vote for ten weeks from now."

Another "Anyone

but Bush" advocate trying to move the swing voters... :POKE:

[Whitehall]

Aristotle's

"Politics" or the story of Pericles.

Emotion in democracy is as old as democracy itself.

Yet, reason

in service to one's emotions can both prevent the worst pitfalls of our emotions and enforce our higher emotional

goals.

For example, patriotism - an emotion with a solid rational basis, within limits.

[belgareth]

patriotism

- an emotion with a solid rational basis, within limits.
That depends on what it is patriotism for, the

country or the government. They are not the same thing.

[DrSmellThis]

Nice posts, Whitehall and

Belgareth.

To Aristotle's Politics I'll add Plato's Republic. These are the founding documents

for Western political thought. For political rhetoric and emotions specifically, Plato's Gorgias is a short

dialog that says it all in terms of the classical critique of political rhetoric as a substitute for real

philosophy.

It is easy and common to isolate emotions from reason, and just hit people in their most primal

fears (e.g., of death and damnation, shame and humiliation) -- a strictly psychological or conditioning approach.

It's an effective population control technique. Patriotism is great in it's natural context. But when isolated off

from that and used to manipulate it is an extremely dangerous weapon of control. Vigilance is always in short

supply. Remember what Hitler accomplished with his own population of reasonable, patriotic people. (For

Aristotle a virtue taken to an extreme becomes a vice. Patriotism, though not specifically an Aristotelian virtue,

would become pridefulness and a number of other vices.) Is there any reason to believe we any less gullible than the

Germans were? Critical thinking and skepticism are extremely important when taking in any "information" (not always

in the face value of messages) with political relevance. So is the ability to think outside the box. We need to

commit to these intellectual virtues as much as any other patriotic values. Otherwise, as Bel says, we are patriotic

in the service of government and not ourselves. Without the fundamental rule and responsibility of an informed

populace, there can be no democracy. That kind of democracy, the only kind, is what our revolutionary blood was

spilled for.

Thanks A.K.A., for the info on the Karl Rove book and documentary. The documentary looks like a

must see! Apparently psy-ops have been essential to Rove's approach since his high school debate team, when he put

stacks of blank index cards on the podium to intimidate his opponents.

[belgareth]

Apparently

psy-ops have been essential to Rove's approach since his high school debate team, when he put stacks of blank index

cards on the podium to intimidate his opponents.
Clever! I wish I had thought of that. :rofl:

[Holmes]

Aristotle's

"Politics"

I'll second that!

(Good post, too.)


That depends on what

it is patriotism for, the country or the government. They are not the same thing.

But they can both

be dangerous.

[a.k.a.]

Apparently

psy-ops have been essential to Rove's approach since his high school debate team, when he put stacks of blank index

cards on the podium to intimidate his opponents.

Didn’t know that, but I guess it

figures.

Besides being the most likely mastermind behind the Swiftboat Veterans, he’s also alleged to

be a master of “push polling”. Fake pollsters calling up prospective voters with questions such as:
“Would you

be more or less likely to reelect Governor Richards if you knew her staff is dominated by lesbians?” (From W’’s 1994

campaign for governor)
or, “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he has a

Black daughter?” (from the Republican primaries)

With regards to the RNC... I don’t know what he was

up to this year, but four years ago Pat Robertson (of all people) complained that Rove wouldn’t let any speaker

deviate from his pre-packaged script. He also came up with the idea of placing token minorities on Bush’s stage, and

dreamed up the now famous slogans “no child left behind” and “compasionate conservativism”.

Let’s hope

the grand jury can put him out of comission before he pulls off any more dirty tricks.

[DrSmellThis]

Is a grand jury inverstigating

him?

[a.k.a.]

Is a grand jury

inverstigating him?

Yup. He hasn't had to testify yet. But he's a prime suspect.
"Last year,

however, Rove's taste for personal politics entangled him in an extraordinary spy scandal. He is reported to have

made calls to Washington journalists last July identifying a CIA undercover agent, Valerie Plame, who was married to

Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had called into question the administration's claims about Iraq's alleged

nuclear programme. Rove allegedly told the journalists that Plame was "fair game" because her husband had gone

public with his criticism.

A grand jury is now investigating the leak of Plame's name, a federal felony.

Rove has denied being its source, and Wilson believes now he may have tried to push the story only after her name

had already been published. Rove has yet to appear before the grand jury, but he has retained an expensive

Washington lawyer.

"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1165126,00.html

http://www.m

snbc.msn.com/id/5123701/

"Sources within the investigation say evidence points to Rove approving

release of the leak. They add that their investigation suggests the President knew about Rove's actions but took no

action to stop release of Plame's

name."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4629.shtml

This could be very

bad for a campaign that hinges on National Security. The Dems tried to whip up some publicity back in June. But

apparently it hasn't been that big of a story yet.

[DrSmellThis]

* Thanks for the info, a.k.a. Your first link is pretty informative. This guy is one of

the most fascinating political figures in the Bush administration -- maybe a sort of human microcosm and archetype

for the dark side of contemporary American politics. The problem is knowing which if any of numerous allegations

against Rove (e.g., the Swift Boat Kerry attacks) are true. It sounds like a ton of circumstantial evidence and

ominous connections, though. If he gets fingered in the Wilson thing that would be a giant scandal, a smoking gun;

and cast Rove as a viscious, treasonous, cold-blooded, political hit-man. Somebody with no conscience leaked

the agent's name for political purposes. So Rove would be one usual suspect. That wouldn't look good for Bush, as

Rove has been one of his closest advisors and oldest friends; throughout every stage of his political career. I

wonder how the grand jury investigation will coincide with the election, timing-wise? Tomorrow I'm going to see the

documentary on him, without expecting to get any definite answers. I tried to find the book tonight, but the

bookstore was sold out.

* I can see why Bush is making sure to give his base so much of what they want

politically right now. He needs their support or complicity when it comes to defending his character and integrity.

Partisan blood is thicker than water, and the ends seem to justify the means for most in this political world,

whether due to cynicism, selfishness, greed, ignorance or some combination of these.

Who could grieve for all

the victims of even one unjust war fought anywhere, or take full emotional responsibility for what their own

government does in their name? The emotions that go along with letting information about political corruption in

seem too big for most of us to process, in the same way that grieving for a major loss is, but perhaps even moreso.

Here I can only speculate. I cannot claim to really know what governments do. On the slim chance we allow ourselves

to perceive the extremes of governmental malaise at all, do we choose to coat it with "psychological mucous" and

compartmentalize it? Aren't we all guilty of this? I know I minimized some of the corrupt things Clinton was

accused of doing (e.g., political assasination attempts, worse-than-rockstar levels of sexual hijinks, Whitewater,

etc.) because I liked some of his accomplishments (though I wasn't a registered Democrat). Despite Nixon's

reputation for being a cold-blooded crook, my parents remember him as the "great Chinese foreign policy" president.

Reagan was made of teflon; and people looked the other way for Kennedy. Maybe the Lord blessed Ford with being

boring, and Carter with being naive. But where do you draw the line, when you are freely chosing to live in this

country, and virtually all the administrations are corrupt in malignant ways?

Power is more powerful than it

used to be. The world is getting so small and interdependent! So a small "leadership ripple" makes big waves

everywhere imaginable; moreso than ever before. It really makes me struggle with cynicism, and affects my patriotism

in a negative way. I guess you just take it day by day, try to stay informed, and decide where to draw the line

based on your values for your country. It just feels like a lame position to take.

Something I learned from

talking to my parents about politics is that any possible corruption in politics, beyond a certain pedestrian line,

is unthinkable for them. Presumably, on the other side looms foolishness, paranoia, and madness. If indeed the dark

emotions of political truth are too vast for any one citizen to really feel; if even the virtues of wisdom

and courage are constrained by the strength and capacity of the human heart; if patriotism must remain blind to

endure; wouldn't unfathomable corruption be the most prudent sort to cultivate, and therefore be the

natural end state of power corruption? Was the sinister brilliance of Hitler partly a realization of this?

How much do the powerful even understand about power, and why has so little been written about it by those who have

lived it?

Demonizing rarely leads to understanding. Perhaps we all need to take a lesson from the Buddhists; for

whom nature is as brutal as it is beautiful; and for whom violence in all its dimensions is no threat to inner peace

or right action.

Last week I read this, and it helped a little: ;)

http://books.fantasticfiction.co.uk/x1/x5086.

htm?authorid=16825 (http://books.fantasticfiction.co.uk/x1/x5086.htm?authorid=16825)

[a.k.a.]

Hope this isn’t beating a dead

horse, but I thought this article was on

topic:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0911-23.htm

"Republicans are real men. Democrats

are gay. Bush is a resolute he-man who will keep us safe from terrorists; Kerry is a flip-flopper who wants to take

a more "sensitive" approach to the war on terror and who, as Vice President Cheney sneered, seems to think "Al Qaeda

will be impressed with our softer side." Conservatives are not just tough, they're compassionate, too; as for the

Christian right, what Christian right? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! That's really all you need

to know about the Republican National Convention.

OK, so they overdid it a bit. Crazy Zell Miller had

forgotten to take his meds, Cheney looked like he wanted to strangle a cat, and maybe you had to be there to see the

humor in those anti-Kerry gag Band-Aids printed with a purple heart. Still, you've got to hand it to the

Republicans: The macho card was skillfully played. They had John McCain, the coolest guy in Congress--the only cool

guy in Congress--upon whom every male reporter in America seems to have a major crush. They had obnoxious Arnold

Schwarzenegger, America's sweetheart. And don't forget Rudy Giuliani. His speech was such a masterful blend of

brio, sentimentality and New York edge, by the end I was practically ready to vote for Bush myself.

Through

clever stage-managing and endless iteration of the discredited Saddam/Al Qaeda connection, the RNC managed to attach

to the reckless and inept Bush presidency the qualities Americans admire in men--optimism, confidence, fun, resolve,

determination, single-mindedness, strength, will, foresight. Kerry and the Dems were the opposite--pessimistic,

weak, indecisive, effeminate Breck girls and girlie men. You'd think Kerry, not Bush, had been the cheerleader in

prep school. In the contest between real men and girlie men, women don't exist. The few female speakers were there

to underline Bush's heterosexual credentials: Elizabeth Dole said Bush would protect us from gay marriage; Laura,

Barbara and the twins testified to his Dadness. And don't forget Barney, the Scottish Terrier. Real men have dogs.

Women--gays--Democrats--have cats.

You wouldn't think so, though, if you'd watched the militaristic

extravaganza that was the Democratic convention: the Swift Boat band of brothers, the saluting candidate "reporting

for duty." I cringed, I really did. It was such a blatant manipulation of imagery, so patronizing, such a kick in

the teeth to the Democratic base. ¿Quién es más macho? Maybe they could just wrestle--or better yet, take a leaf

from Zell Miller and have a duel. At this rate, we won't have a woman President until the year 3000, and she'll

have to be a five-star general. "

[a.k.a.]

Something I

learned from talking to my parents about politics is that any possible corruption in politics, beyond a certain

pedestrian line, is unthinkable for them. Presumably, on the other side looms foolishness, paranoia, and madness. If

indeed the dark emotions of political truth are too vast for any one citizen to really feel; if even the

virtues of wisdom and courage are constrained by the strength and capacity of the human heart; if patriotism must

remain blind to endure; wouldn't unfathomable corruption be the most prudent sort to cultivate, and

therefore be the natural end state of power corruption? Was the sinister brilliance of Hitler partly a

realization of this?

Maybe. But I tend towards a simpler explanation. Anxiety is one of the most

basic emotions, yet it’s one of the most difficult to refer to a specific cause. By creating a state of tension,

fear and suspicion, you can raise the anxiety level. By giving people a simple cause for this anxiety (Jews,

Muslims) you gain legitimacy for yourself and can better convince them of your ability to save them from dangers

(both real and imagined) that they don't see but nevertheless feel.

[DrSmellThis]

The two explanations aren't

mutually exclusive factors. I agree with your "simple" analysis.

Nice posted article, by the way. I don't

think you're beating a dead horse. Scummy ethics and lack of conscience aside; I guess you have to hand it to Karl

Rove as a rhetorical/political tactician. He is an absolute pro among amateurs. I just saw the documentary on him,

which was very, very disturbing; but fascinating; since the plot of the documentary (a mixture of Rove's life and

the history of certain Republican politics, especially involving G.W. Bush's political history.) is playing itself

out vividly in the current news. I learned that Rove has a strongly recognizable M.O. I'm not sure anyone since

Reagan has been as influential on Republican politics. I heartily recommend the film, Bush's Brain, to

anyone interested in the underside or hidden side of politics.

[deepblue]

Kerry will make a good

President. He most obviously isn't a Clinton, I can see that just looking at him. I believe he is more like a

Franklin D. Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln (tall) kind of President and a good man with good values.

Bush

gives tax breaks to the rich and companies that want to relocate to a foreign country taking money and jobs off

shore. Kerry wants to reverse this plutocratic trend.

Bush also wants to put an end to Social Security and

allow the government to spend more of the money that is supposed to be set aside for people's retirement (by law).

Does anyone really want to take a chance that they will be so rich in the future that a Social Security check is a

joke? When you live off your savings alone it won't last as long and life spans just keep getting longer. In fact I

can't imagine everyone having enough savings for extended retirements and they'd be put on some kind of government

funding anyhow after their savings ran out. So why pretend it won't happen and plan for it now.

Thirdly,

Bush's idea of an energy plan is to invest heavily in new coal resources. I remember a speach about new clean coal

technology. This doesn't sound like the energy of the future to me. It sounds more like the current energy regime

pocketing more money before a sweeping energy reform is found absolutely necessary.

Then we have Medicare

reforms Bush is pushing which cost more than they are worth. Why can't people continue to get medication from

Canada at a cheaper rate? Why can't Americans get a lower rate on prescription drugs like the rest of the world?

Why are foreign corporate entities setting our rates? Who will stick up for us? I'm betting on Kerry. Everyone is

crapping on Americans, and that war in Iraq is making it an even easier task ... we're a hate object. Not that I

care about that so much as all the money we've poured out in that desert wasteland, and we can't just pick up and

leave now either no matter who is President.

Bush's major campaign contributor was Enron. No wonder he did not

try nail the big guys in the company harder. Then to top it off he says let's do away with Social Security and

invest in the free market, you'll all be better off that way. I say, did the stock market crash big time or what

you moron ... your statement was equivalent to saying, "Let them eat cake."

It is time for a change in our

country and I'm more than willing to try a new horse and bet on Kerry for President. :hammer:

One other point

... in the war on Iraq they always talk about numbers of men killed, but they never mention the number of men who

have lost limbs and have permanent injuries. The airplanes fly in at night when the press isn't there to meet them

and I haven't seen Bush visit the hospital yet. I think this is a shame. :welcome:

[hotrocks5]

I get the feeling that the

Democrats are losing steam. There's still over a month left, but still. In the early going, you had the Abu

Ghraib prison scandal which was a very hot topic. Michael Moore's movie was also another draw. Everything from

Enron to an enormous federal deficit to the failures of George W. Bush to recognize the signs that would lead to

9/11 or the growing number of American soldiers dying in Iraq. It seemed like there was a scandal happening

everyday that was negatively affecting the Bush campaign. It didn't seem like there was any way he would be able

to get out of such a deep hole. Then things started to shift, and now all of a sudden, for whatever reason, the

previous war records of Bush and Kerry are the center of attention, and I'm guessing voters are struggling to

figure out who the hell is telling the truth. So now there's a shift from negative attention solely on Bush to a

somewhat even playing field. That gives the edge to the Bush campaign. Now maybe in the following weeks, someone

will differentiate themselves enough to appeal to the few remaining swing voters. The way I look at it, you have a

choice between an indecisive Democrat or a unilateral hillbilly who has arguably made many questionable decisions

thus far in his presidency. Hmm...tough call.

[belgareth]

The way I look

at it, you have a choice between an indecisive Democrat or a unilateral hillbilly who has arguably made many

questionable decisions thus far in his presidency. Hmm...tough call.
That's an excellent summation of

another pair of almost equally bad choices for president.

[Holmes]

That's an

excellent summation of another pair of almost equally bad choices for president.

Indeed. :thumbsup:



The operative word, however, being almost. Even if Kerry's policies were 2% more productive, he is

still the wiser choice for the long haul.

Give Bush four more years and you're looking at major league

problems.

[belgareth]

Indeed.

:thumbsup:

The operative word, however, being almost. Even if Kerry's policies were 2% more productive,

he is still the wiser choice for the long haul.

Give Bush four more years and you're looking at major league

problems.
No offense Holmes, but you don't know if Kerry is better or worse and neither do I. Bush really

and truly sucks but how do we know that Kerry isn't as bad or worse? It's a sad state of affairs that the only

choices who stand a chance of winning the election are both worthless. Despite what anybody says about it, I don't

intend to vote for either. Not sure who I will vote for but I'll not vote before I'll vote for either of them.

[deepblue]

I can look at Kerry and know he

isn't like Clinton, Al Gore, or even Bush. Just my opinion but I think he will be a good President. He isn't as

indecisive as he is made out to be either.

I was listening to one Bush speech and he said Kerry was indecisive

over a bill to fund further operations in Iraq. Kerry hesitated for good reason too, the bill was loaded with so

much pork that had nothing to do with simply funding war efforts. If that is indecisive then you might look at

indecisive people as rather wise.

Simply judging by what he says I think he has a lot of good things on the

agenda for change too. Bush on the other hand ... :whip:

[belgareth]

I'm curious, exactly what do

you look at that allows you to so closely judge a person's capability or integrity?

[DrSmellThis]

I'm skeptical about this characterization of Kerry to say the least. I'd like to look at

the "top ten" examples of Kerry's indecisiveness -- if there are ten important ones -- in detail, considering the

context in full; to see how many of them -- if any -- really represent "indecisive flip flopping"; versus

merely refusing to look at things in a simplistic, black and white manner. As you said, wisdom looks at all sides of

an issue, and goes on information it has available to it at the time.

Must we demand all our leaders be fools?!

Too much of this country is allowing it's thinking to be formed by prejudice, fundamentalism, and the classic

stinkin' thinkin' of substance abuse recovery (and sudden conversion to charismatic, evangelical religiosity, like

Bush also experienced), all of which rely on simplistic, black and white thinking to a dangerous degree.

This

has been one of my pet peeves for a while as a psychologist. In fact, one of the most destructive forces in all the

world right now is this meta-idea -- an idea behind ideas -- that the world is nothing but clear examples

true/false, good/bad and right/wrong! It's a thought disorder, and a world-wide epidemic. Though in reality this is

as much of an "evil in need of renouncing" as any "evil", we tend to admire those who think in this way --

when they tell us they know The True and The Right, and are fighting for it.
How could we? It is an extremely

seductive from of wish fulfillment, enabling our addiction to this artificially soothing form of sick thinking.



It is also classic Carl Rove to take someone's strength, in this case thoughtfulness and

circumspection (characteristics of wisdom), and recast it as a weakness -- "flip-flopping". He uses that

deadly weapon in every campaign. (He's doing the same thing with Kerry's war record.) Most of our country is

swallowing it, hook, line and sinker.

How can Rove get away with this?

It is a blatant manipulation of our

lust for artificial mental and emotional comfort. How many people think about thinking enough to recognize

this malaise in themselves and fight it off? One out of a hundred?? If so, 99 out of 100, whether conservative or

liberal, would be fundamentally defenseless against Rove and company. And if so, even liberal leaning folk would be

buying into the flip-flopping BS and criticising their own man for it. But isn't that precisely what we are

observing? It's sad.

In fact, letting go of black and white thinking is one of the most stress-reducing and

healthy things somebody can do. I've personally experienced this enormous relief to some extent as a recovering,

former religious-Republican. If everyone did it, no war would be psychologically possible. Pragmatic

diplomacy would reign. And true peace on Earth would be within our reach.

[a.k.a.]

The idea of a leader who friends and

foes alike say never changes his mind bears little resemblance to the actual George W. Bush, who has taken

diametrically opposed stands on the need for a Homeland Security Department (Time, 4/26/04), an independent

September 11 commission (Baltimore Sun, 3/31/04) and a patients' bill of rights (Political Animal, 3/21/04;

Washington Post, 4/5/04). His flip-flop on "nation-building" was so pronounced that Comedy Central's Daily Show (

4/30/03) once staged a debate on the subject with taped statements from Bush taking both sides. But if it doesn't

match reality, the media image of a resolute Bush does conform remarkably well to Karl Rove's 2004 campaign slogan:

"Steady Leadership in a Time of Change."

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kerry-bush.html

[deepblue]

I'm curious,

exactly what do you look at that allows you to so closely judge a person's capability or integrity?I'm not

up for a huge discussion on it but I probably use the same faculties everyone else uses to make snap

characterizations of people, minus the over-thought bull you find in the news which tries to make something out of

sound bytes usually.

I also look at what the man is saying, not so much for what he will do as what he is

thinking to take action on. I like what is on his agenda so far.

I also like his personality ... very

subjective, but he reminds me of other honest men I've known. In contrast I never liked Clinton, Gore, ... I don't

think I had an opinion of Bush to start off with.

As far as Bush goes though I can simply look at the things

that he has done or not done because he is the Pres. :hammer:



http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/

I thought this was pretty good.

[DrSmellThis]

I'm curious,

exactly what do you look at that allows you to so closely judge a person's capability or integrity?This

first thing you look at is what does it mean to have integrity as an American? What does it mean for America to have

integrity? For example, what would it really mean to support democracy and freedom at home and abroad? Who do I know

that is the same in their deepest depths as they are on the outside with their actions and words? That trains your

ear to be able to listen to what politicians say.

We don't know for sure what Kerry would do, but we know that

what the incumbent has done is extreme and outside the norm. So if Kerry was a random unknown person, one would

still expect a change closer to the average. Average is not great, but it beats dangerous, particularly in a time of

crisis and emergency. Sometimes accepting a crappy choice is the responsible thing to do at a particular time.

[belgareth]

I'm not up for

a huge discussion on it but I probably use the same faculties everyone else uses to make snap characterizations of

people, minus the over-thought bull you find in the news which tries to make something out of sound bytes usually.



As far as Bush goes though I can simply look at the things that he has done or not done because he is the Pres.

:hammer:

http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/

I thought this was

pretty good.
There's no argument about Bush, that wasn't my question. I am questioning the value of snap

judgments and usually view them in about the same catagory as sound bytes, neither is to be trusted. What little I

have read of Kerry's congressional record and history in politics has given me a little insight into his character.

Based on that, my previous statement about not voting for either of them still stands. I was honestly hoping for

something substantial.

[deepblue]

I explained it, you just

wanted more than I had.


People have unfairly compared Kerry to Clinton and Al Gore just because he

is a Democrat. Then they call him a commie Liberal which is another stupid jab at him. Then I hear he has no

personality ... I've known many competent men who don't have movie star sex appeal.


I simply

gave my personal view on the man. He looks good to me.


I've read a lot of things and my opinion

was probably greatly shaped by this but to tell the truth I'm not very political (except this year) and I don't

remember everything that shaped my views on the man. I just want someone in office who can get the job done, not

hand our asses over to corporate interests, and not bullshit our asses too much with a Texas twang and a smile.




If you looked at Kerry's congressional record and history and spotted nothing interesting, it was

a good sign ... don't ask me why. If the man takes action on the things he's talked about it means a change for

the better in the long run.



I posted more before you finished your post so re-read it first.





Edit: A lot of these things can be argued forever guys, and I know it. When you get down to the

nitty gritty even historical information can be made to sound subjective by the right arguements.





You can always read up on stuff for yourself too. Try:



http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/
and

http://forum.johnkerry.com/ (h

ttp://forum.johnkerry.com/)



Convince yourself if you

can and then tell us about it because I want to know.

[belgareth]

If you

looked at Kerry's congressional record and history and spotted nothing interesting, it was a good sign ... don't

ask me why. If the man takes action on the things he's talked about it means a change for the better in the long

run.

I said I looked a little at his congressional record and his history, haven't had time to

do a lot of reading. I would like to and hope to have the time to compare what he's promised to what he has done

and what he has supported in the past. You are making an assumption that I saw nothing interesting, I never said

that. I only said that from my reading I wouldn't vote for him.

Doc,

I strongly disagree with you about the

responsible thing to do. If you know or have good reason to believe that any person would be bad for the country,

the responsible thing to do would be to not vote for them. Anything else is to passively accept the 'Business as

usual' attitude prevelant in our electoral process.

[DrSmellThis]

Bel, the position you are

arguing for is fundamentally one of principle, rather than pragmatism. I respect everyone's right to vote their

conscience. And you must know by now that I agree with you about everything to do with the principle you are valuing

here. What we apparently disagree about is the relative value of our principle at this moment versus the pragmatic

demands of the moment in a time of emergency. I don't believe we need to be so rigid as to believe that rejecting

business as usual must mean refusing to ever vote for a candidate that fails to meet our standards. I don't worship

our principle as some kind of sacred absolute. Nor do I so worship any limited, individual principle for that

matter, as every principle which is amputated from the demands of everyday situations ultimately fails as a guide to

living. We have already suffered some virtually catastrophic consequences. Do you have multiple solid, compelling

reasons to believe that electing Kerry would literally be catastrophic for our country over the next four year

period? Because this is precisely the kind of rationale you would need to overcome the demands of the moment to get

Bush out; and bring our principle into balance with pragmatism. Logically, otherwise you would be voting on a rigid,

amputated principle -- unless you thought there was nothing particularly catastrophic about continuing the

Bush/Rove/Oil Company/population control approach.

[deepblue]

Well I can't think for you and

I don't have a tremendous interest in in politics. So I'm not going out and doing research on this. I certainly

don't like the direction things are going either.

Did I mention the direction Bush wants to go with Social

Security, Medicare, tax cuts for the rich and for corporations relocating overseas, the Clean Coal technology energy

plan, etc? Plenty more too but I have too much homework to finish to read it all and post.

I also know we only

have two candidates to vote for, so I'm going with Kerry because of his diametrically opposed stance to the things

Bush has proposed. Well at least he seems more reasonable if not the polar opposite of Bush. I don't see why they

would have to be total polar opposites anyhow except for some psychological grab that fails in the end.

If you

can't believe Kerry has the dynamic personality to stand up and actually do what he says, then at least know Bush

will do what he says and it mostly sucks.

You can always read up on stuff for yourself too. Try:




http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/
and

http://forum.johnkerry.com/ (http://f

orum.johnkerry.com/)



Convince yourself if you can

and then tell us about it because I want to know.

[belgareth]

Doc,

According to recent

polls, roughly half the population disagrees with you about Bush. This being Texas, the majority of people here

support him, including almost every one of my friends. I know these people! Few of them are stupid or uninformed,

many of them are just as bright and well educated and well meaning as I believe you to be. Yet they, for what they

believe are the best of reasons, feel as strongly about Kerry as you do about Bush. I can't say that any of them

are evil people trying to get for themselves at the expense of others or our environment. They just disagree with

you about what is in the best interests of this country.

You say I should vote for Kerry for pragmatic reasons,

In my opinion, that's dodging. Every election comes down to pragmatic reasons to vote for/against somebody! Where

do you draw the line? When are you going to take an action to help change a dead end course? You admit its a dead

end course but every election you act to perpetuate the problem. Your pragmatic reasoning is, in my eyes, no

different than not bothering to vote or voting the party ticket just because it's your party. You want change but

you do not vote for change, you vote for business as usual and help to make sure that we stay on a course that you

tell us you believe is wrong!

There are no sacred absolutes to be worshiped but there is the recognition that

we must do something. Nothing is going to change until we take action to change it. The alternative is to continue

to follow the path we are now on, one that you acknowledge is not the way you want to see this country go. As far

back as I can remember, every election somebody has presented me with a variation of your pragmatic argument in

support of one candidate and on several occaisions I've heard them in favor of both candidates. And for a while I

fell into to that thought trap. But eventually I realized that that is all it is, a thought trap. It saves us from

the necessity of making hard decisions and allows us to go on our merry way believing we did something for the good

of the country. And that is no more and no less than an excuse which I no longer will accept.

Each side can make

a great argument and tell me why thier side is in the best interests of this country. History and experience shows

me that once elected, at best we will get lip service and more likely we will get lied to some more. And factories

will continue to pollute because they or their proxies paid millions to each candidate's election fund and are owed

favors and so on. But at least we can feel good because we made the pragmatic decision.

[DrSmellThis]

Bel, I really just suggested a

logical framework of possibilities wherein we might agree to disagree, and thereby make progress in identifying the

critical issue; and was not trying to make you personally be wrong (that's why I left you logical room to

maneuver). You must not have liked the framework, since you didn't respond to it directly other than to take its

"pragmatism" out of context and pretend it was meant in an isolated way (which would have undercut my own argument

about amputated principles). I'll be happy to respond if I could be constructive in doing so, but don't want to

reinvent a logical wheel. Perhaps you could suggest a fair logical framework for characterizing our disagreement.

For me, a huge, essential part of rejecting business as usual involves aiming for real philosophical

discussion. (See Plato's Gorgias, the most fundamental document in Western thought for understanding

rhetoric. If there was ever philosophical discussion in politics, it's degenerated to the point where there is

absolutely NO true discussion between sides, thanks to the Karl Roves of the world (the other side has lesser

versions too).)

[deepblue]

Belgareth why did we (me

too) elect Bush to begin with? For that matter how did Arnold Schwarzenegger win over California from the

incumbent? Did people simply recognize them as leaders and welcome them in or did they first want some kind of

change or recognize some fear in staying put?

I'd like to know of a more positive method for choosing a leader

than looking at the record of the incumbent and contrasting it with the words of a new candidate but it seems hard

or impossible to come by.

I know Kerry takes his fair share of negative hits too, so I’m not sure negativity is

such a bad thing if taken in the right way and not to heart.

One way I’ve been thinking of it recently is that

a balance between Democrats and Republicans must be kept for sane bureaucratic decision making to rule the day. So

if you have more of one party than the other in Congress you may need to balance it out with the minority party

gaining the President’s seat.

Another way I look at it is as the Process of Elimination P.O.E. When one

candidate simply says and does all the wrong things you choose the guy who is saying he will do the right thing and

call it a day.

When you look at those last two items I think it takes the entire negativity notion out of the

process. It becomes a dual process of balancing out power between Democrats and Republicans and going through the

process of elimination when it comes to candidates on issues.

Beyond this people tend to look at who they think

the winner will be because they want to vote for the winning side or they want to vote like their buddies and

neighbors so they can pat each other on the back or come across as doing the right thing. I believe this is why the

vote is anonymous in the first place. Too many hurt feelings when you cross your buddies and vote opposite them.



An interesting overview of issues, though pretty incomplete in my view can be found at NPR.


http://www.npr.org/politics/issues2004/

Really though

there are many things in the news that go way beyond this in being informative.

[belgareth]

Doc,

Sorry for being a

pig-headed old fart but it has always worked for me. :)

The way I understand you, and please correct me if I am

wrong, is that you would like me to agree that it is pragmatic to vote Bush out of office. I agree that it is

possibly so. However, as I was trying to point out, there are many good honest people who believe Kerry would be a

far greater disaster than Bush. I don't know if that is true either. What I do know is that both the democrats and

republicans have been responsible for whittling away at our rights, that both parties have supported and condoned

policy decision after policy decision that are destroying the world we live in, that both parties continue to work

on reaching deeper into our pockets which harms every person in this country. I listen to each side and hear the

same noises I heard in the last election and the one before that and so on; "We are going to change things for the

better." But it never happens!

Certainly, there are differences between the democrats and the republicans, but

to my eye they are miniscule. Maybe Kerry would do some small good but maybe he would follow the party line while

bowing to those who paid good money to get him elected as has happened so many other times. History teaches us that

the later is more likely than the former.

There is a large segment of the population that believes Bush is doing

a good job, there is another large segment that believes he must be replaced with anybody. I am saying that we can

no longer afford either of the parties; we cannot afford the petty bickering and we cannot afford the the unkept

promises or the business as usual games that come out of Washington. In your view, pragmatism dictates that we vote

for Kerry because Bush is such a danger to this country, from other's view we must vote for Bush for the same

reasons. I reject both arguments as inherently flawed. They are both extremely dangerous to this country and the

difference between them is inconsequential.

I'm not trying to be difficult and I respect your right and desire

to vote your concience and your belief that you are doing the right thing to help this country. I intend to do the

same but mine tells me that my every political action must be directed towards changing the system rather than being

willing to compromise any longer.

[deepblue]

I realize it is a private

conversation at this point but good points Bel.

The main thing I've reacted to is all the money poured into

Iraq. First we have money to burn and now we're running a deficit again. Too many lives will be ruined and money

lost over there. Plus we can't leave without making many more enemies.

Another part of this whole mess

though has been a long-standing policy of deregulation. This process has been ruining every part of our economy for

a long time now. Deregulate the banks, the airlines, the energy, telecommunications, and next up Social Security and

Medicare. Deregulation even allowed accountants to work for the companies they audit which resulted in the recent

stock market crash.

[belgareth]

Deepblue,

I appreciate the

courtesy but it is not a private conversation and everybody is welcome to join in.

The deficit never went away,

that was in large part a paper shuffle. I'll look for the link where it is explained and post it if I can. The war

is a huge farce and really has me upset, mostly abou the innocent lives wasted but the money too. I could go into a

long tirade about it but won't.

Deregulation is a mixed brew and both parties are equally at fault there as

well. Over regulation is also a serious problem, we need to find a middle ground.

[DrSmellThis]

So the disagreement is

twofold:

1. Over the degree of difference between the candidates. I think that might be our biggest

disagreement. This election is fundamentally different than the last one by a long shot, given what we know now

versus then. There are commonalities in their being part of the same corrupt process, but I see Bush as

significantly more entrenched in that very corruption than Kerry. I see Kerry as more consistent with the idea of

rejecting business as usual, though only enough so that continuing the fight for this under him will be possible

and easier than under Bush. But more than that, I see continuing anything will be difficult under Bush,

as we will just invite many crisies, poverties, and disasters upon ourselves, as well as erosion of personal

liberties that will more than overwhelm our ability to continue to fight against the system for years to come --

possibly many, many years. If your friends think Kerry will be disastrous in the way I think Bush would be, I have

no idea what information they are going on, or what their arguments would even be. Kerry isn't militarily weak,

after all - the Republicans' biggest concern. Other than that I just hear cliche Republican sound bytes that are

really not specific to Kerry but more about the proposed superiority of Republicanism. From their side it does seem

like a another boring matchup of tax and spend Democrat versus Republican. But I regard that idea as a smokescreen,

a cover up for the coup attempt that has been started and would continue in a Bush second term. Bush had duped his

own party into following his extremism, closing their eyes to it, by promising all the traditional Republican things

to them.

2. Over the degree of harm that four years of either candidate would likely result in. So "Bush isn't

all that bad as to create a crisis or emergency" that should cause us to prefer a somewhat serpentine path through

Kerry; as opposed to a "straight line toward changing the system". I see that "straight line" as more like a

practical dead end, if it involves allowing Bush to get reelected. I would see that as neglecting more funadamental

issues, like a person continuing their important business ambitions irregardless of their basic health despite

having a basic health issue to attend to. I look at the country like a physical being here. I think if we can stop

the bleeding we will be able to continue the good fight enormously easier. But if Bush gets reelected we will be

isolated in the world, Al Queda will continue to run rampant (he could have easily had Bin Laden and never mentions

him); terrorism will continue to increase in line with the bad will, democracy will continue its nose dive in the

US, the huge damage to the environment will accelerate beyond its already suicidal rate (possibly crossing several

lines of irreversability in damage), poverty and joblessness will continue to skyrocket as they are, and several

millions more Americans will lose health care as they have. The rich will get richer, large corporations, the

worst ones, will more than solidify their hold over the windpipe of culture, politics and the world; we will

bankrupt ourselves with military spending and resources devoted to the oil industry and other pet corrupt interests

of Bush; the hopelessness around the world about American policy will skyrocket, and therefore we will run an

astronomically greater chance of mind bogglingly devastating terrorist attacks on our soil, etc, etc. Our recession

will worsen, but an impoverished citizenry is easier to control, so Bush won't really care. Right now in my city if

you are an an environmental activist you are already liable to be visited and intimidated by the FBI. If you are

Muslim you are already liable to get arrested and held without charge on phony evidence. Police are emboldened all

across the nation to arrest people knowing there is no broken law just because they can. There is apparently no

limit to the amount of liberty to disagree Bush will crush if he can get away with it. There is no way in hell Kerry

is equal on these dimensions of crisis proportion, or any other emergent dimensions! We are talking about a

fundamental, wholesale change for the worse in the structure of America and America's place in the world. It is

tantamount to the disappearance of the America I know. America will become even less democratic here and in its

actions among others in the world (and it's already very bad in this respect). This dwarfs the corruption inherent

in the commonalities between them for the purposes of this election, which will probably be fixed by Rove and

company anyway (that would be routine for him)! It might already be too late, and might be time to move out.

Revolution is pointless. It's only within the system that things could get fixed here. Either Kerry or Bush has to

get elected, and will get elected. It is either "fight the good fight" through one, or the other.

[belgareth]

I'll agree with your first two

sentances in the first paragraph. :) Unfortunately, from that point on, I can't agree with you. You give Kerry and

the democrats the benefit of the doubt where I rely on historical data. The democrats are just as guilty of helping

to destroy our environment although I will give them credit for being more subtle about it. I don't understand

Kerry's stand on the war because it does and has changed several times. That clearly tells me that it can change

again once he is in office. The democrats are just as responsible for stealing our social security system as the

republicans, arguably more guilty. That's a callous disregard for the poor and middle classes. I'm not trying to

defend the republicans who are guilty of as many reprehensible acts, only pointing out that they are equally guilty.

The democrats are the ones that have tried agin and again to take guns away from law abiding citizens while reducing

the penalties for those who use a gun to commit crimes. For those and many other reasons, I cannot accept the

argument that a democratic president will be a bit better for this country than a republican. The differences are

insignificant.

[DrSmellThis]

If I thought this was essentially about "Democrat vs. Republican" as you just said, I'd agree with

more than 50-75% of what you just said (though that wouldn't be enough to make me not vote for anyone). But that

was a Rovian casting of the election that I don't buy (though I bet many of your friends in Texas, the Rove

propaganda capital of the universe, buy it).

I am not going to just assume in a paranoid fashion that

everything every politician says is a lie so nothing matters. I want to stay sort of grounded in

reality here. (I'd probably still choose the tone of Kerry's lies over Bush's if that were the case, knowing

there's typically some truth behind most lies.) What makes you think I am ignoring historical record? Give specific

examples.

Regarding the one specific about Kerry you mentioned (I'm not real worried about the NRA platform

myself (Kerry is a hunter), and I agree both parties wrecked SS), I don't feel uncomfortable with Kerry's

stand on the war, as I get where he's coming from. There is some -- a tiny bit of -- recasting for political

expediency but not much. You should follow the link Deep Blue provided above and read up, then come back and tell us

exactly what you are talking about with this flip flopping. He hasn't been anywhere near as inconsistent as was

portrayed by Rove and Co.

Again you are painting a Rovian picture of the contest. You have to get into the

historical and political context and think about it to see beneath Rove's "flip flopping" attack. Bush should

have flip flopped himself when the rug was pulled out from under his primary war rationale and the other

information came out showing the Saddham links were an illusion. But then it came out that the rationale and

WMD/terrorism links were purposely exaggerated, and that officials were intensely pressured to fabricate

those links (even though the CIA director took the fall). Moreover, the Bush administration was willing to commit

high treason by exposing a CIA agent when her husband, Wilson, wrote an administration report debunking part

of the Saddham/WMD link, and resisted the pressure to fabricate a link. People have stood in front a firing squad in

this country for such treasons the "high administration official" committed in exposing the agent. Carl Rove, who

many suspect, actually said -- in public -- she had it coming to her! Can you believe that?!? The actual Rove quote

was that "she was fair game" for what her husband did (tell the truth when asked to report). A lack of remorse is

essential to his M.O. It almost doesn't matter whether he is guilty of leaking her identity to the conservative

journalist Robert Novak. He is publically condoning treason in one breath and directing the Bush presidency and

campaign with the next. A family's life is ruined, and what CIA agent can now feel protected? Now Bush says, "I'd

really like to know who did it!" Um, could it be your most intimate friend, mentor and associate? :lol:

The

situation flip flopped, and the information flip-flopped -- not so much Kerry. The whole country flip flopped. We

were guilty of believing our president, not of changing our minds. It was fabrication and exaggeration to begin

with. Invading Iraq come hell or high water was indisputably on the Bush/Cheney/Rove agenda from day one. People --

government officials -- who wanted to focus more on terrorism and less on Iraq were silenced. That is what the

collected information taken as a whole indicates pretty clearly, if you follow alternative sources of news with the

conventional ones. Remember the ultimatum Bush gave Iraq before we invaded? Essentially: ''Prove you have no WMD

or we'll invade." Iraq was allowing inspections at that point, and had submitted documentation to us to the tune of

10,000 pages or something saying they had no WMD. We had no domestic intelligence on WMD for them -- just something

from London and subjective statements from some other countries like Russia. The CIA failed to live up to Bush's

expectations of the day. Their real crime was in not fabricating enough for Rove's taste (the WMD angle for

justifying the invasion and staying "on message" about it was Rove's idea). I'm not saying Iraq wasn't a problem,

but they never stood a chance to avoid invasion by the time Bush got in.

We are all guilty of screwing up the

environment, you and I included. You are not going to elect any truly environmentally friendly leader in this

country at this moment. I'll take subtle destruction over wholesale devastation any day. It is about optimization

given the realistic possibilities and continuing the good fight -- which is a long term, gradual proposition that

depends on generations dying off and being replaced, unless you have a good way of taking over the country. We need

to be in the here and now too.

[belgareth]

Your missing my point! I am not

defending any of the Bush gang's actions. All I intend to do is point out that the two groups are essentially the

same. I also intended to say that the democrats are more subtle in how they formulate laws that allow destruction of

the environment, not how they destroy the environment themselves. Whether the action is forthright or clandistine,

the results are the same, neither party cares to protect the environment. I do not now and never supported the war

in Iraq or Bush's excuses for it, you've read enough of my disparaging comments about it to know that. The gun

issue IS NOT, in my eyes, an NRA issue even though we agree on that one point, it's an invasion into personal

right, and an over-intrusive government issue. It's a failure to properly enforce laws and instead taking away

rights from peaceful citizens issue.

From my perspective, a potential candidate must prove himself to the

people, not force us to decide between evils and that is the choice between the two major candidates in this

election.

[DrSmellThis]

DeepBlue, It's not private,

though it seems so. That's just who's mixing it up the most right now. I appreciate your measured input and your

voice of reason.

[DrSmellThis]

Your missing

my point! I am not defending any of the Bush gang's actions. All I intend to do is point out that the two groups

are essentially the same. I also intended to say that the democrats are more subtle in how they formulate laws that

allow destruction of the environment, not how they destroy the environment themselves. Whether the action is

forthright or clandistine, the results are the same, neither party cares to protect the environment. I do not now

and never supported the war in Iraq or Bush's excuses for it, you've read enough of my disparaging comments about

it to know that. The gun issue IS NOT, in my eyes, an NRA issue even though we agree on that one point, it's an

invasion into personal right, and an over-intrusive government issue. It's a failure to properly enforce laws and

instead taking away rights from peaceful citizens issue.

From my perspective, a potential candidate must prove

himself to the people, not force us to decide between evils and that is the choice between the two major candidates

in this election.Well I congratulate you for staying "on message". If you go on vacation, I'll argue your

position for you for fifty bucks! ;) You repeatedly assert the two candidates are the same (though you usually

insist on framing it in terms of parties), but asserting something and demonstrating it are two different things. It

is still suprising to me every time you assert it, given how extremely corrupt Bush and gang are as individuals

compared to other Republicans, whereas Kerry is an average Democrat in terms of policies.

But you did make the

point that Kerry flip flops on the war, and that was what I addressed. Other than Blue's link, I was adding the bit

about the context for all our flip flopping on the administration's Iraq policies.

Remember, we both agreed

that our biggest disagreement is in the difference between the candidates. So I expect you'll want to be logical

now and counter my argument by demonstrating how Kerry is a ruthless criminal, since you agree the Bush gang are

ruthless criminals in the ways I have detailed. Otherwise you cannot demonstrate they are substantively the same.



And I'd love to see you compare the two candidates' environmental policies and records for similarities.

[belgareth]

Where did I say Bush was a

criminal? Not arguing the point as it is far too hard to prove either way but I'd like to know where I said that.

[DrSmellThis]

When I detailed multiple,

obviously criminal activities you replied you're "not defending any of the Bush gang's actions." The implicit

agreement is there. If you want to "plead no contest" instead, and just say you neither believe nor disbelieve Bush

is criminally corrupt, but choose not to contest it; then I'd suggest you investigate it further. The information

is there, as long as you seek out alternative news, such as books and periodicals, with some eagerness.

[belgareth]

I don't dispute he is crooked

but you are citing allegations not convictions. I misunderstood you and you misunderstood me. I thought you were

referring to proven activities as in the case of Clinton or Nixon. You interpreted my decision to not debate the

point as implicit agreement which it wasn't, it was a decision to not defend the actions of a person I

wholeheartedly disapprove of. While we both have every right to an opinion in the matter, that's all it is, an

opinion.

With that I will bid you a good evening.

[DrSmellThis]

I have no interest in trying

to "prove" things that are a matter of public record (such as Rove's anti-American statement about the agent, but

see below links), but can only summarize some highlights of a mountain of existing information that I believe hangs

together well to paint a compelling picture, and request that people look for info on those topics themselves (I'm

helping a little at the bottom of this post regarding Rove). This is not so much about my opinion, though it's

there; but more about a reasonable person's opinion when exposed to the info about these issues. I am making claims

that information is out there, more than expressing an opinion about it. If someone is exposed to it, my main job is

done. Then I'd just ask, "What is your opinion?" I'd love to know everybody's opinion other than, "It's all BS

and look how bad the tax and spend liberals are". On the other hand, the whole "everybody has their opinion" thing

can be a cop out and promote mental laziness unless applied in hindsight to the available, given information. I know

you are generally well informed, Bel. It is just too bad people mostly depend on Fox news, mainstream newspapers,

and the networks.

I wasn't refering to legal convictions, but to public record and multiple allegations from

reputable sources. I know Rove and Co have been too smart to get caught and/or deterred. (According to the book and

recent documentary on him, Bush's Brain, the powerful Rove tells the law what to do, not vice versa. Besides

influencing lawmakers, he once had two people in Texas convicted and put in jail for years on ridiculous charges by

the FBI just because they were political enemies. The book and film (plus first link below) also indicated that

several times he had his friends in the FBI investigate political enemies on baseless rumors just to destroy them in

the press.) Clinton admitted oral sex, but was not convicted in Whitewater hearings. Nor was he impeached for the

oral sex. Nixon was pardoned and resigned before he could be impeached. Saddam hasn't been convicted of anything to

date. Hitler was convicted post mortem. Mussolini was an exception. Citizens of corrupt governments rarely have

proof available in their government-influenced conventional press. It is unrealistic to wait for a court of law, but

one can be compelled if one seeks enough info.

If a McCain, Powell, Kemp, Ford or Dole were running instead for

the Republicans, I would maybe go to "neutrality-land" with you, assuming the last 4 years would have been much

better, and the next not so scary. I voted for Reagan and bitched at people for demonizing him, even though he had a

nasty case of tunnel vision. But I've just seen too much information about this set of individuals. I just hope

somebody upstairs is looking out for us.

***
For more on Karl Rove from solid journalistic

sources:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww

3/120503_rove.html (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120503_rove.html)
http://www.

guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1165126,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1165126,00.html) (link good but slow to load)

[DrSmellThis]

More clever fear politics

today:



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/

19/hastert.remark/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/hastert.remark/index.html)

[belgareth]

Doc,

You do a good job of

reinforcing my cynical view of our government. But you haven't yet given me a reason to vote FOR Kerry, just more

reason to believe that our system is hopelessly corrupt and that I need to spend every effort to try to change the

system.

You and I will not agree and I admit that my viewpoint is pretty radical. The whole point to my

posistion, and the more we discuss it the more you reinforce it, is the belief that we need to wake up and work on

fixing the problem instead of bandaiding it every few years. Let me present an alternative thought to you. If Bush

is indeed as crooked as you state, would it not be more rewarding to see him removed from office through being

prosecuted? That's not an agreement or disagreement that he is a criminal, only a hypothetical question. We still

have to deal with the fact that approximately half the voters like him and feel he is doing the job well. This is a

democracy, after all.

[Pancho1188]

Two random comments (you

wouldn't expect anything less):

1. I think the main reason Kerry has the "indecisive" stigma is because of the

"anyone but Bush" sentiment. If you're put in a race where the only thing voters say you have to do is not

be Bush to win, what are you going to do? You're going to hang on the fence until the election is over. Now

everyone is criticizing him for a strategy that was almost forced on him by the democratic mindset. "We'll vote

for anyone as long as it's not Bush." Well, then, better not make any sudden moves to get them to think Bush is a

good idea. It's almost like Head of State, only the opposite circumstances. In the movie, they have no

chance of winning because the other guy's a boyscout, so they put in the candidate that will make them look the

best as a party for giving the little guy, Chris Rock, a shot. In this race, the other guy is portrayed by the

media as the complete opposite (I won't go there), so they put in the candidate that has absolutely no chance of

rocking the boat and hope he gets in purely on his character.

The fact that people criticize Kerry is a joke

because people told him that all he'd have to do is look good until election day and he'd be President. Just goes

to show you that you should never listen to the masses because they don't know what they're talking about, and

then they'll turn on you and throw you to the wolves. ;) ;)

2. I'm really tired about hearing about tax breaks

for the rich. I shake my head every time someone gives this argument. It's the 80/20 rule. The top 20% of

American income pays 80% of the taxes. Any tax break, even if 75% of the breaks went to the lowest income segment

and 25% went to the highest 50%, the richest people would still see the most benefit. It's simple math. I hope to

strive towards a higher income bracket, so there's no way I'm going to try to force all of the taxes on to rich

people for I don't want to be paying 50% of my hard-earned money to taxes when I start making a comfortable salary.

The lowest income bracket pays 10% of their money to taxes. The highest income bracket can pay anywhere between 30

and 50% of their income to taxes. How is this not fair? It's almost ironic that rich people even pay for stuff

they'll never use. They pay for public schooling and welfare that they'll never use. They pay for Social

Security that they may never even file for when they're older because they have plenty of money.


This is why

I hate politics. You can't win. Even when you win, you lose. When you lose, I still say you win for not having

to put up with millions of people complaining that you're the source of their problems...

...that said, if

there's an amendment banning gay marriage, I'm going to lose all respect for my country that says it's the "land

of the free"...land of the free my ass (if they pass anything like this on the issue).

[belgareth]

Two random

comments (you wouldn't expect anything less):


2. I'm really tired about hearing about tax breaks for the

rich. I shake my head every time someone gives this argument. It's the 80/20 rule. The top 20% of American income

pays 80% of the taxes. Any tax break, even if 75% of the breaks went to the lowest income segment and 25% went to

the highest 50%, the richest people would still see the most benefit. It's simple math. I hope to strive towards a

higher income bracket, so there's no way I'm going to try to force all of the taxes on to rich people for I don't

want to be paying 50% of my hard-earned money to taxes when I start making a comfortable salary. The lowest income

bracket pays 10% of their money to taxes. The highest income bracket can pay anywhere between 30 and 50% of their

income to taxes. How is this not fair? It's almost ironic that rich people even pay for stuff they'll never use.

They pay for public schooling and welfare that they'll never use. They pay for Social Security that they may never

even file for when they're older because they have plenty of money.


...that said, if there's an amendment

banning gay marriage, I'm going to lose all respect for my country that says it's the "land of the free"...land of

the free my ass (if they pass anything like this on the issue).Pancho,

I hate to give you the bad news

but the tax rate is significantly higher than those you quoted. You are only looking at the up-front taxes. Start

adding in SSI, sales tax, property tax, school taxes and so on, you'll find the average is close to 50% if not

somewhere over that in some states. And what do we get for paying half of every dollar earned in taxes?

Many

people think it is fair to tax the highest wage earners higher but I believe it a disincentive. Why bust your ass to

do well when the government is going to take it away from you? A modified flat tax would seem to be much more fair

and in the interests of the people as a whole. By modified I mean that a very small segment of the lowest income

earners would pay no taxes. Otherwise, everybody pays the same percentage of their earnings. One of the greatest

benefits would be the ability to drastically reduce the size and scope of the IRS, an inefficient parasitic branch

of government that has grown far to powerful for our good.

Banning gay marraige is just another example of too

much government intrusion into the private affairs of individuals.

[Pancho1188]

Pancho,

I

hate to give you the bad news but the tax rate is significantly higher than those you quoted. You are only looking

at the up-front taxes. Start adding in SSI, sales tax, property tax, school taxes and so on, you'll find the

average is close to 50% if not somewhere over that in some states. And what do we get for paying half of

every dollar earned in taxes?

I was only counting Federal taxes because, after all, we're talking about

the President and the Federal government. The president doesn't institute sales tax, which actually taxes

poor people more than rich people, or other taxes. On that topic, I pay 10% sales tax, so all you

people can quit your whining about paying your lousy 5-8% (or 0% in Delaware)... :rasp:

As for your thought on

the modified flat tax, it's a good idea. I believe in the flat tax as rich people will naturally be paying more

because they have more money. However, this would mean that poor people will probably be paying more (as I said,

they only pay ~10%, so it'll never happen because a flat tax would probably increase taxes for the poor if you want

richer people to continue to pay a lot...that's why we have the tiered system as it is now).

Anyway, as I said,

I was talking about Federal taxes. I apologize for going on a rant that mentioned other taxes that may have strayed

from Federal taxes (schools, etc.) as I was focusing on Federal tax for the basis of my statistics.

[belgareth]

Federal taxes in part filter

down to the state level in a complicated dance. State taxes are used for funding what federal can't or doesn't.

So, the taxes should all be viewed as part of the whole. One of the most common dodges used is the idea that this

little 1/4 percent will not hurt anybody financially. And that's true, as far as it goes. What it does not address

is the other hundred or so painless little taxes we pay at the same time. It all adds up to a lot oif our income. We

have to view the burden as a whole to really see how much our government is hurting us with the ever increasing tax

burden.

[Pancho1188]

You are completely right on

everything you said. However, I was only trying to say that it's dumb to complain that tax breaks benefit the rich

because the way our tax system is set up naturally leads to rich people benefitting from any tax break

because they are the ones that pay most of the taxes. It's an inappropriate argument to make to get a politician

out of office...that's all I was trying to say.

When I hear, "Bush supports tax breaks for the rich," the

red-flag goes up. Anyone who took a tax accounting class knows that this is statement is redundant (meaning that

tax breaks favor the people who pay the most taxes...aka the rich via the 80/20 rule). My tax law professor spent

20 minutes showing in graphic detail how tax breaks will always benefit the rich more than the poor because they pay

more money in taxes.

[belgareth]

I am in complete agreement with

you and your professor. Anybody who wants to look at some simple math can figure it out for themselves. Do you think

the politicians want you to figure it out? It isn't about facts and issues, it's about emotion as was pointed out

early in this thread. Both sides are guilty of spewing hyperbole and the public is guilty of allowing and accpting

it.

[koolking1]

"They pay for Social

Security that they may never even file for when they're older because they have plenty of money."

Pancho,

laughing here - believe me, they are the first to file for their SS and don't think for a moment that every wealthy

person isn't collecting their due - I would wager that less than 1% of the wealthy don't file for it out of some

social conscience they may have.

Sorry to get off the topic but I couldn't let that go by.

My own

pragmatism tells me I should vote for Kerry. My principles tell me to vote for Nader.

I have to reason

this out with myself.

hypothetical situation:

I am walking down the street and because I'm looking

at some pretty woman I accidentally bump into another man so I apologize. He sees things differently and punches

me. I am stunned for a moment but then as I regain my composure and prepare to strike back I see a policeman come

around the corner. I realize the policeman will only see me hitting him. If I take to heart my principles I may go

to jail. My pragmatism wins out.

or

I'm an American

soldier. On principle I find it morally wrong to kill but I must kill or be killed. Pragmatism wins again.



Bush or Kerry will win this election.

"Revolution is pointless. It's only within the system that

things could get fixed here. Either Kerry or Bush has to get elected, and will get elected. It is either "fight the

good fight" through one, or the other."

I couldn't agree more with DST's thought above. I feel that if you

don't like Bush then you must vote for Kerry (believe me, I've really wrestled with this one). Then, if you voted

for Kerry as the "ABB" candidate and Kerry wins, you must then start working at your local level to attempt to make

Kerry and the Dems pay attention to you. One could start now by telling your local Dem party organization that they

are getting your vote this time only because of the "ABB" factor and that they better start to move back more to the

left or whatever direction you want them to move to.

It does look like Bush will win but I've seen other

arrogant administrations win only to lose later (usually not at the polls but thru war, revolution, or legal

action). I'm hoping the latter becomes the case.

[Mtnjim]

"According to recent polls, roughly

half the population disagrees with you about Bush."

Too bad the WORLD can't vote. Last night on the CBS

Nightly News, there was a report on polls conducted world wide. In Europe only Poland supported Bush, everywhere

else he lost bigtime! In Asia, only the Phillipines supported Bush.

On another front. The news reported that

Arnold S. has already released more convicted murderers in his first couple of months in office than Grey Davis or

Pete Wilson did their entire times in office!

[belgareth]

KK,

Great idea in theory.

In practice, changing our government the way you describe has failed many times. They are too sure of their power

base. Now, if you could get a big chunk of the voting population to stop voting along party lines, you cold get

their attention. But until you can do that, you are wasting your time trying to change the existing structure.

[DrSmellThis]

Bel, I'll vote to stop the

bleeding first and you vote to let us bleed, thinking you're going to fix the true cause of the bleeding. I'm

convinced the first approach is not only compassionate, it's good medicine. The second, if practiced by many, risks

losing the patient at worst. At best, it add more injuries on top of the one you want to fix. It delays and adds

obstacles to true healing.

[DrSmellThis]

I don't see many rich people

choosing to become poor because of the threat of taxes. As a percentage of disposable income, what's left over

after survival and basic physical needs, the poor pay far more taxes than the rich currently. If you have a

dollar left at the end of the week, giving that dollar away is an astronomically bigger gift than giving ten if you

have ten thousand left. A progressive tax structure is one of the few things that makes our country compassionate

toward the less-advantaged. Most people willingly accept the burden. We could simplify it and get rid of the IRS

without going to a flat tax. In this age of calculators and computers, the idea that the simple progressive math

formula per se is what makes it complicated seems silly.

[Pancho1188]

Well, I'll say one thing of

the effect of Bush's tax breaks on the economy:

The tax system creates thousands of accounting jobs... :lol:





As for people staying poor...

In Germany (a few years ago...I don't know about now), some people choose

to live on welfare because working and being taxed actually has them earn less than if they did nothing at all!!!

[DrSmellThis]

But what were Germanys taxes,

and what was the welfare system like? You're probably talking about an entirely different effect, about the

incentive to be on public assistance.

There are certainly unfair, overly complicated and stupid

progressive tax systems (such as ours), but that was not the issue.

[belgareth]

Well, I'll

say one thing of the effect of Bush's tax breaks on the economy:

The tax system creates thousands of accounting

jobs... :lol:



As for people staying poor...

In Germany (a few years ago...I don't know about now),

some people choose to live on welfare because working and being taxed actually has them earn less than if they did

nothing at all!!!It creates a lot of jobs for attorneys too.

People staying on the welfare rolls because

they do better than working at some jobs happens here too. Adjusting the minimum wage has been tried as one method

of helping that situation, with mixed results. I can't prove it but my guess is that it's a break even situation.

Higher pay for some but greater demands made so they have to pay fewer workers.

Doc,

Stopping the bleeding

is a great idea but you still haven't convinced me that Kerry can or is even willing to do that. It's also

possible that stopping the bleeding is irrelevent as the patient still has terminal cancer. Most of the rest of your

comments are subjective as nobody can prove whether you are wrong or right. I do think that the ideas you are

espousing now are a good example of why many people associate the word progressive with higher taxes and more

government.

In any event, I've spent enough time on this subject, you aren't going to convince me with your

arguments and I'm not going to convince you with mine. We see things too differently. All we are doing is going in

circles over an unresolvable difference of opinion. So, I am going to bow out at this time.

[deepblue]

Hey guys,

I haven't

finished catching up on this thread yet but I wanted to lay some quotes on you about "the rich" ... I don't think

we're all talking about the same thing.

Quote:
"The real rich dodge taxes and small business owners pay

the burden." Does that sound like a radical-liberal denunciation of privilege by candidate John Kerry? Guess

again. It’s a pronouncement by President Bush.

Speaking at the Northern Virginia Community

College in Anandale on August 9, Bush said, "On the subject of taxes, just remember when you're talk about, we're

just going to run up the taxes on a certain number of people, first of all, real rich people figure out how to dodge

taxes, and the small business owners end up paying a lot of the burden of this taxation."

So the way I

see it when you guys talk about rich people you might really be thinking upper middle class or something. Does

anyone here make more than $200,000 a year? Just curious ...

[koolking1]

I make well under

$200,000.00.

[DrSmellThis]

Notice how disciplined Bush is in staying "on message" with his responses to Kerry's

critiques here:



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/21/k

erry.tues/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/21/kerry.tues/index.html)

No matter what Kerry brings up about the war, Bush's response is always that Kerry

has multiple positions on it (implying one should ignore him and that he represents consistent leadership). This is

due to Rove's training of him since before he was governor. Staying on a simple message you want to grind into the

public's heads is a long time Rove trademark, and was one of the first things he taught Bush, according to the

documentary. It is fascinating to learn about Rove's style and techniques, and then see in the daily news how

closely and obediently Bush (and colleagues) follows them. I suspect there will be a lot of Political Science

doctoral dissertations written on Rove before it's all over.