Democrats & Liberals Archives

Save For Being a Tragedy, This Would be Hilarious

Before the current Iraq War started, and even up to this very moment, anyone who dared question the wisdom of the war was likely to be accused of having “Vietnam Syndrome”. Apparently coined by Henry Kissinger, this phrase refers to the idea that people have been so traumatized by the Vietnam War that they see every subsequent war through that dark lens.

Naturally, this phrase is usually used by the Right to attack those "cowards" and "traitors" on the Left. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise! George W. Bush himself has the bug.

This is a short post, because to my mind the searing fact that the foremost supporter of the Iraq War has invoked our defeat in Vietnam speaks volumes by itself. How the mighty neocons have fallen!

I have been trying to think of a more self-defeating analogy that Bush could have used. "Napoleon bounced back, and so can I"?

I am definitely sending my resume to the White House. They are obviously looking for people with a refined sense of the absurd these days.

Posted by Woody Mena at August 23, 2007 8:59 AM
Comment #230382

Woody how many times have you heard the Republican’s say that Iraq is not like Nam, and nowhere near it. I have a lot, yet we entered both wars on lies from up high, propaganda given out without worrying about what will happen.
Well the great AWOL leader(Bush the Worse) has decided to say that if we pull out like we did in Nam then the country will erupt into a civil war(well it is already in one). This fisaco of a war started like Nam, and will end like Nam, but hopefully with not have as many American deaths like Nam.
We need to get out now, because we will not make a difference no matter how long we are there. It is up to the people of Iraq to make a difference and they seem to want to stay like they were for centuries, under the thumb of some religious fanatic or despot

Posted by: KT at August 23, 2007 9:32 AM
Comment #230385

I have thought this many times and stated it several times on these blogs. “The Bush administration is their own worse enemy” Yesterday GW himself without a doubt certified and reaffirmed that notion. My immediate thought when such revelations are presented to us is how did this man ever get elected even once, let alone twice. This realization sure says a lot about the gullibility, naivete and apathetic nature of the american voter. I think it could also be an indication of just how many people practice blind party politics.

Posted by: RickIL at August 23, 2007 10:38 AM
Comment #230387


I think a strong selling point in your resume would be how well you can effectively mask the word failure. All that is really required is a flare for spewing forth spin. And of course the ability to keep a straight face in front of the whole world while you effectively stick your foot in your mouth most everyday.

Posted by: RickIL at August 23, 2007 10:46 AM
Comment #230394

I wonder how long it will be before NIKE opens a shoe factory in Iraq?

Posted by: BillS at August 23, 2007 11:35 AM
Comment #230395
This realization sure says a lot about the gullibility, naivete and apathetic nature of the american voter.

Actually, it says even more about the quality of candidates that the Democrats provided as alternatives. Had either of them inspired any kind of confidence in ability we wouldn’t have had a first term of GWB, let alone a second.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 11:41 AM
Comment #230399

So it is the Democrats’ fault that we have an incompetent Republican president? Rhinehold, I think there may be a job for you in the White House.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 23, 2007 11:53 AM
Comment #230401

… and the next time anyone complains about the “malaise” of the Carter years, I’ll be sure to point out that it’s all the Republicans’ fault for choosing someone who couldn’t climb stairs.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 23, 2007 11:55 AM
Comment #230403

I’m saying it’s the democrats fault for not offering up a viable alternative to the middle of the road voters that would have put Bush out, yes. Incompetent Republican that we know and keeping in power would show our enemies that we are united or incompetent Democrats that would most likely be worse and tax us to death?

That is what most moderate voters were thinking.

I think you saw the results.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #230406


Actually, Carter was a given after Nixon. The Dems could have put up a rabid dog with mange and it would have been voted in because it wasn’t a Republican. Ford was a lame duck, no matter how good of a president he was, because of the stench of Watergate. A stench that still lasts today, I might add, and feeds the current generation of a scandal-hungry media.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment #230411

Rhinehold, you mean like 2008 !

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #230412

Possibly. Though, I don’t think the stench is nearly as great as it was after Watergate. Now that the ideal of an ‘Honest Politician’ is cracked in our modern consciousness, there are many who don’t see much of an improvement over Bush with the Democratic candidates. It is still possible, IMO, for a Republican candidate to turn it around (though I don’t see much from the current crop) or that this administration will make enough changes in the next 18 months to alter the fickle opinion polls (again, another long shot by the looks of things) but at least there is a chance, unlike 1976 when there was pretty much no possibility of anything Ford could do to alter the course.

Of course, it helps that Cheney is not running and the current Republican candidates are not tainted with this current administration, Ford was unfortunately still viewed as being of that administration even though he arrived on the scene so very late. Whether it is enough… it’s too early to say with enough certainty to start worrying about an all Democratic government.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 12:21 PM
Comment #230416

You always forget that Gore got more votes than Bush.We put up the most qualified,most experienced pesidential candidate in history. In any other Western democracy he would have prevailed. It may strike you as odd but in most democracies the candidate that gets the most votes wins.
Gore did well with centrist. The left was the problem in Florida. If it had not been for the arrogance of the Naderites it would have been much harder for the election to have been stolen.

Posted by: BillS at August 23, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #230420


You always forget that Gore didn’t win the election (you need to win the electoral college in this country) and that he *SHOULD* have won in a landslide. Had he been able to carry his own state he would have won. The election was not stolen, no matter how much you say it was or want it to be. Bush won, Gore lost and he lost big considering he was part of a popular administration and was still riding a good economy. He lost because he was disliked by progressives and centrists alike. Had he been as popular with the centrists as you like to claim, he would have won going away. He didn’t.

I’m sorry BillS, but no matter how much you WANT it to be, Gore failed miserably. And how DARE people vote for the candidate they agree with most, don’t they know they are suppose to be ‘counted upon’ by one of the two major parties? How ‘ARROGANT’ indeed, voting your own mind. Gore shouldn’t have had to try to win those people’s votes at all…

Who is the one being arrogant here? The people who voted their mind, voting for a chandidate that best represented their views or the candidate and their supporters who didn’t even pay lip service to them or try to court their vote because they were SUPPOSE to vote for them anyways…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 1:47 PM
Comment #230421

Oh, btw, thanks for the laugh. It’s been a rough day and I needed that one. Nearly made my water fly out my nose, you did!

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 1:48 PM
Comment #230422

BillS said: “If it had not been for the arrogance of the Naderites it would have been much harder for the election to have been stolen.”

I love it when Democrats display their complete opposition to democratic elections by belittling and denigrating any voters that don’t vote the way Democrats would have them. And you call Republicans authoritarian in nature. Would you punish such arrogance of Naderites, or exhalt them for exercising their Constitutional and democratic freedoms to vote their conscience? There isn’t much middle ground here, and you obviously believe that denigrating them is the least punishment they deserve exercising liberty and freedom at election time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2007 1:58 PM
Comment #230423

Rhinehold said: “there are many who don’t see much of an improvement over Bush with the Democratic candidates.”

That ‘many’ you refer too, I fear will prove to be an unimpressive minority in the 2008. But, then there is not, at this time, any strong independent candidate stepping forward and that leaves Democrats with a landslide in ‘08. Bloomberg announced this week he is NOT running, citing the inability to win as his reason. I say that’s great, since, OBVIOUSLY, representing the people was never his aim in the first place, WINNING was! Which would have made him no better than Republican or Democratic candidates, and worse than a couple of them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2007 2:03 PM
Comment #230428


I agree about Bloomberg. But I wouldn’t count the Green and Libertarians out yet, it is WAY early in the whole mess and they haven’t even had their conventions yet to pick a candidate. I almost wish that there was some controversy as to who would be running because that might get some press and get those names out in the media, so that they could be mentioned with the likes of Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, etc.

Each day that goes by with the media telling people that one of those are the only ‘real’ candidates, the harder it is going to be for an independant or third-party candidate to make any noise in 2008.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 2:35 PM
Comment #230429

David R. Remer-
Winning is not a bad thing, if you’re looking to create political change. The complicated thing is getting that victory on your own terms, so that you have the mandate to do what you want, instead of having gotten it by simply telling people what they want to hear.

If you’re lucky, you’ll have a genuinely popular message. If you’re generic, a not so adventurous politician who’s been a political difference-splitter your whole career, it’s actually honest to say that you won’t run because you know you can’t win. There’s a lot of people, Democrat and Republican, who haven’t been able to honestly face that fact.

If only other indifferent politicians would make that calculation, instead of deciding to get into brutal campaigns, where they use rough tactics to smear others, or saccharine generalities and anal sunshine pumping to get past the fact that they’ve got nothing to bring and no real ideas to lead with.

My beef is with mediocrity and half-assed governance. I want leaders with the right combination of guts and responsibility; in essense, everything Bush hasn’t been.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2007 2:36 PM
Comment #230430


Blaming a Republican victory on Greens is questionable.

Blaming a Republican victory on Democrats is downright loopy.

You blame the Democrats for choosing someone you didn’t want to vote for, but you don’t blame the Greens for supporting someone you agree with even less and who had no chance of winning at all.

Basically, the Greens can vote their conscience, but the Democrats have to shape themselves to your will or it is their own darn fault for losing. Where is the logic here? I’m not seeing it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 23, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #230433

Everyone should vote for who they want to vote for. But the Dems could have nominated someone who was more to the liking of more than just a small group of democrats that he needed to get to win the nomination. I don’t necessarily fault the Democrats specifically, it’s more a symptom of the moronic primary process that we go through for the Republicans AND Democrats. How many people bow out after Iowa who could be good for the rest of the country? Why is it that we have primaries on so many different days instead of one single day of primaries? That just never made sense to me.

But yes, I blame the Democrats on losing because they didn’t attract enough voters to their message and their candidate. It is this reason, and this reason alone, that they lost. Just as it is the Green Party’s fault that they didn’t attract enough voters to their message.

How can you sit and argue that it is someone else’s fault that you lost? What sense does that make really? Gore lost because he was not a good enough candidate to win. I mean, the Republicans can surely say that the reason Dole was not elected in 1996 instead of Clinton was because of Perot, but I find it interesting that the Democrats never had a problem with that. The fact is, if Dole had been a good enough candidate in 1996 he would have beaten the lesser (IMO) Clinton. But he didn’t and life goes on.

I ‘blame’ the Republican victory on the fact that Bush was able to win enough states, to convince enough people in enough states to win the election. I wish Bush hadn’t won, or even been nominated, but I also wish Gore hadn’t been nominated either. They were both pretty bad propositions for anyone. I didn’t vote for either (or Nader) that year, but if I had only been given the choice between the two, at the time, I would probably had voted for Bush instead of Gore. Instead I voted for the late Harry Browne. Did Browne steal votes from Bush? Are we going to blame a republican victory on Browne not stealing ‘enough’ votes? Or did he also steal votes away from Gore as well? The Libertarian Party is more of a combination of bits of each of the two (not by design) so it isn’t as much of a stretch, is it?

No, simply put, Gore lost because *HE* lost. Especially considering that in his situation he should have ridden in as easily as Bush’s father did in 1988. That he didn’t just goes to show how BAD of a candidate he was. And Dems should vote their conscious as well, which they did, which resulted in Gore not winning.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 2:54 PM
Comment #230436

This is a statement Bush made in front of a lot of Viet Nam vets yesterday…..the man has actually managed to surpass his own stupidity !!
“The question now before us comes down to this: Will today’s generation of Americans resist the deceptive allure of retreat and do in the Middle East what veterans in this room did in Asia?”
PRESIDENT BUSH, speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at August 23, 2007 3:03 PM
Comment #230440
How can you sit and argue that it is someone else’s fault that you lost?

How can you sit and argue that isn’t the “fault” of Republicans that Bush won?

Here’s an analogy: Bob goes to McDonalds, buys a bad hamburger, and then dies of food poisoning. Whose fault is it?

By your logic, it is those losers at Burger King! If they made better tasting food, then people wouldn’t eat at McDonalds.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 23, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #230446

Erm, it *WAS* the fault of Republicans that Bush won. It was the fault of Democrats that Gore lost. How is that not simple enough to agree with?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 3:25 PM
Comment #230447

Napoleon was exiled to some remote island.

Posted by: Ron Brown at August 23, 2007 3:28 PM
Comment #230448


Actually it is my opinion that Bush won both terms as a result of blind party politics and the not so moral republican agenda of falsely casting themselves as representatives of the moral majority. Quite simply they pulled the wool over the eyes of those who were relying on them to do the right and moral things necessary to practice honest government and uphold particular religious values. Unfortunately for them an underlying not so righteous agenda, and an obviously weak moral character has since surfaced and caught the unfavorable attentions of most of the religious right. People do not liked to be duped, especially by elected officials.

We had a good ole boy from Texas with just average college grades, and no experience in foreign diplomacy who had failed at most every endeavor in life. His only attraction was that he speaks on the level of the average US citizen with little or no formal education. He was elected because he was presented in the form of a simple all american guy with a moral agenda to rival the less than righteous liberals.

All this said it is the responsibility of the voter to discern the credibility of the candidates at hand. I personally would have taken Gore or Kerry in a heart beat over GW. For me this was a no brainer. We need intelligent articulate and compassionate people, not necessarily republican or democrat, capable of negotiation, compromise, and the ability to discern intelligently to run a successful government. I think it is most evident that those who voted for this man did not take seriously the necessity of these qualities in a leader.

To be honest we will never see the perfect candidate. Until the corruptive powers of wealthy lobbyists and special interest groups are removed from the governmental process or placed completely in the open for all to see we will not have a government answerable to the people. So long as a degree of corruption is considered acceptable we will have only the facade of a responsible government.

Posted by: RickIL at August 23, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #230452


The Democrats are responsible for choosing an appealing candidate and marketing him/her well. BK is responsible for selling an appealing burger. Once the voter/consumer chooses the competition, the loser is absolved of any responsibility for the consequences.

I don’t think I am going to convince you, but I’ve made my point.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 23, 2007 3:58 PM
Comment #230453

Again, I don’t disagree with you. But I will tell McDonald’s that if they had done a better job or made a better burger, they might have won over those who chose BK instead of McDonald’s.

But I *Won’t* tell White Castle that them being in business cost them consumers that would have chosen McDonald’s instead and chastize those people who chose White Castle.

It’s not McDonald’s fault that consumers preferred BK, but it is their fault for not putting out a better product or marketing campaign that may have gotten some of those consumers to chose them.

Seriously, Woody, I’m not sure where we disagree?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 4:04 PM
Comment #230456

The Democrats are responsible for choosing an appealing candidate and marketing him/her well. BK is responsible for selling an appealing burger. Once the voter/consumer chooses the competition, the loser is absolved of any responsibility for the consequences.

So it’s not the Democrat’s fault that Gore and Kerry couldn’t market themselves properly? It’s not the Democrat’s fault for nominating the only two people in the country who are more politically inept than Bush?

Posted by: TheTraveler at August 23, 2007 4:44 PM
Comment #230457

Gore GOT more votes than Bush,period.

DR The arrogant disregard for political reality and gullibity of the Naderites directly hurt people and the country and continues to do so.
Bushes first act as president was to recind work rules designed to prevent repetitives motion injuries. Next time you see a supermarket clerk with a wrist support you can applaud the Florida Greens and their self rightious votes. With luck ,if you keep it up,you can help elect Guilioni or Romney with the same holier than thou crap.

Posted by: BillS at August 23, 2007 4:55 PM
Comment #230458
Gore GOT more votes than Bush,period.Good for him, I hope he enjoys knowing that when he never becomes president.

What does that have to do with anything, though?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #230462

2000 was a fluke. The worst I can say about the Greens in 2000 is that they didn’t acknowledge that getting somebody like Bush in office was a bad thing, as their politics might lead one to believe they would. I blame the Democrats for letting campaign consultants turn Gore into a stiff, when he had the capacity to be more than that. I blame the Republicans for letting this guy even get past the primaries.

I blame the Supreme Court for putting its credibility in hock by letting itself interfere with the process. There wasn’t much good done by making itself look like it appointed Bush the victor.

I blame the Bush political staff for not caring how obnoxious and fascist they looked as they tried numerous means to intimidate and distract those counting the votes. They easily could have won with a great deal more dignity and class. Let it never be said they didn’t pass up a chance to show they had neither.

2004 is a different matter. I blame the Democrats for once again choosing political consultants to run the campaign who turned a candidate who could easily beat Bush in intellectual presence into another cautious nervous nelly. 2004 could have been like 2006 if we hadn’t been so afraid of differentiating ourselves from the Republicans that we effectively let us get beat up without a chance to stand dignified and resolute.

2004, the Republicans chose loyalty to their leader over loyalty to their principles. They got what they paid for The Greens did not exactly cover themselves in glory either. Having played spoilers in 2000, with all the crap Bush did, they decided to support the Republicans in the hopes that more of them would lead to a faster rise for their party, and that Democrats were still no different than their Republican counterparts. My God, four years of the Bush administration, and people still believed there was no difference in their policies? And did they actually think they’d capture future votes from Democrats, by working hand in glove with Republicans? Like I said, 2000 was a fluke, 2004, they had no excuse for, even though they were insignificant to the margins.

In general? I blame a culture that has adopted a comic book superhero mentality as to how leaders are supposed to act, and which applies the politics of high-school to places where to be honest, there’s a real need for good-old fashioned nerds to think and work things out.

But ultimately, I blame people who saw four years worth of what Bush was doing, and felt that the past wasn’t going to be reflected on the future.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment #230464

BillS, said: “DR The arrogant disregard for political reality and gullibity of the Naderites directly hurt people and the country and continues to do so.”

Like I said. You would make a very good dictator or authoritarian, BillS. To condemn voters for voting their conscience and self-interest in a democratic election system is to speak and act like an authoritarian or dictator who cannot abide free elections.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #230465

Rhinehold said: “Erm, it *WAS* the fault of Republicans that Bush won. It was the fault of Democrats that Gore lost. How is that not simple enough to agree with?”

That’s the problem with your assertion, Rhinehold. It is too simple to be accurate by any means. Elections in our society are enormously multivariate affairs, of which, campaigning is only a significant part. Context, voter experience and history, media, economy, children’s prospects are just some of the other variables that determine election outcomes.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2007 5:49 PM
Comment #230470

David R. Remer-
I doubt that’s his impulse. The main thrust of what Democrats are saying is that they’re putting their partisan interests in being rivals to the Democrats over their natural political interests in the furtherance of a more liberal, earth friendly agenda.

If you want to vote on principle, fine, go ahead. But how do you define that? What’s more important, the real world furtherance of that principle, or its internal furtherance?

Until third parties gain enough grassroots support to sustain a national presence, they should be prepared, if things are close, to vote for the party that would best serve their actual interests: the Democrats. If they campaign on behalf of Republicans, or intentionally seek to act as spoilers, they’re only ensuring that people see them as a counterproductive choice, despite their stated beliefs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2007 6:33 PM
Comment #230472

Faux News…still working it..

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at August 23, 2007 6:57 PM
Comment #230473
“My station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at FOX News.”

That is CNN’s Christiane Amanpour explaining why the major television networks failed to accurately inform the public in the lead-up to the Iraq war, choosing instead to follow FOX’s lead.

A perfect reason to never watch CNN again, they’ve just admnitted that they alter the news (this isn’t the first time) due to political pressure.

It’s getting to the point there is no one worth watching anymore, anyone have any ideas?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 7:02 PM
Comment #230474

Actually, they are worse than Fox, Fox believes what they say, CNN reported out of fear…

Such integrity.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 7:04 PM
Comment #230475

Just how is calling a spade a spade being dictatorial? No wonder Rhinehold is laughing.What was the reason the Greens did not back Gore,Lets see,it was because his family made money with Occidental Petroleum wasn’t it? Compared to Bushco that is absurd.

Your reaction means that useing the all to real example of the supermarket checker must have stuck a nerve. Good. That is my point. Presidential elections are not just about grand esoteric issues of war and peace or even such mundane things as fiscal policy.They are also about thousands of decisions by dept. heads and functionaries. These matter.How about an NLRB packed with unionbusting shills,how about an EPA whose goal is to prevent regulation.How about FEMA being run by an incompetant place holder,How about the Solicitor General fileing amicus briefs in favor of companies involved is ripping off pension funds,How about a Fed OSHA that no longer inspects jobsites. This list could go on for pages and pages. These are real injuries to real people. You might see them easier if your head was not in the clouds or another place of lesser elevation.

Posted by: BillS at August 23, 2007 7:05 PM
Comment #230476

Good job BillS, one of the best explanations of why we should not allow the government have so much control over lives and further that control be all in one single place.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 7:11 PM
Comment #230477

The News Hour is the best option. They are rigorous in provideing balance and fact checking. They also go into depth on complicated issues,always from two viewpoints from people that actually know the subject,not blathering pundits. That is one of their drawbacks. Because they go into depth they only have time to cover a limited number of topics,but these they do well.No Paris Hilton stories here. They also post an honor role of US servicemen and women killed in our wars,in silence,with photos provided by families at the end.

Posted by: BillS at August 23, 2007 7:18 PM
Comment #230482


Yeah agree more than we disagree, on the winner-loser thing.

I lost whatever respect I had for CNN when they hired that warmed-over O’Reilly clone Glenn Beck.

My only non-Internet news source is NPR.


I don’t buy that Bush is politically inept. If you believe that, you have to not only think that Gore and Kerry are completely lame, but Ann Richards was too. He is lousy at governing but he knows how to campaign (or at least he picked good advisors).

I know I was just bashing him for making a dumb analogy, but they are running out of rhetorical tricks. They have compared to Iraq to every other war in American history (only a slight exagarration), so they were finally stuck with one we lost.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 23, 2007 8:15 PM
Comment #230508

You forgot the Apache War. That lasted 49 years. The US won.WHOOPEE!

Posted by: BillS at August 24, 2007 12:39 AM
Comment #230519

Hey, how about that John Warner, a real coward and a traitor enamored with retreat, right… RIGHT!? Who does he think he is calling out the president like that, telling him to start bringing home soldiers to send a message after, ahem, consulting of course with the generals first? Because, of course, withdrawing equals retreat which equals fast retreat which equals run for the hills which equals… surrender.

Doesn’t he know that just like Vietnam a free Iraq is within reach?

Posted by: chris2x at August 24, 2007 3:19 AM
Comment #230521


You must know you sound a bit like Bush when you accuse those who bash Nader supporters who were only exercising their freedoms and democracy, of being, uh what, undemocratic and freedom lovin’? BillS doesn’t bash Naderites for not marching in lock-step with the Democrats but not giving the alternative enough consideration. I would agree with BillS that Nader supporters were on their high-horse when there was a lot at stake. To think Gore wasn’t green enough for the Greens, in this country! That’s not being pro-democrat but looking at politics for what it naturally is, the art of the possible.


Gore should have won by a larger margin but Clinton fatigue and an evangelical right duped by BushCo were tough opponents. I know the right loathes Gore and wants to paint him as a despicable loser and liar but it is not supported by the facts. I wish Gore had won his home state or convinced more Naderites to join him, our country would undoubtedly be a whole lot better off.

Posted by: chris2x at August 24, 2007 3:46 AM
Comment #230522

Well I can’t resist. I must jump into the discussion. Although I am loath to continue reinforcing the repubs who post here but here I go. I have no illusion that I will change any minds. The democrats DID NOT lose in 2000 or 2004. The elections were stolen by Rove and his soliders in arms. Read Greg Palast, armed madhouse. Google voter fraud. The green party did not cause the democrats to lose. Even if nader had not run, democrats would have lost. Rove and his machine was set to steal the election no matter how many votes they had to change or how many african americans and latinos they had to disinfranchise. These are my opinions based on the numerous articles, books, and videos I have read and looked at.

Posted by: Carolina at August 24, 2007 8:53 AM
Comment #230523
These are my opinions based on the numerous articles, books, and videos I have read and looked at.

I imagine they are.

The problem is in the amount of factchecking those articles/book/vidoes went through though, and how balanced they were (or weren’t).

There was no election theft. Unless you can provide some facts perhaps (not theory and bogeyman hysteria)…?

And remember, you have to counter the MSM calling Flordia for Gore while large republican districts were still voting AND the concerted Democrat attempt to discount military votes in Florida as well…

And the fact that the recounts of Florida that took place in 2001 showed that Bush would have won the recounts Gore was asking for…

*shrug* How many people think that the Moon Landing was faked and UFO’s abduct people again?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 24, 2007 9:45 AM
Comment #230524

Rhinehold, I again refer you to Greg palast, armed madhouse. He has done extensive research on this for his book. He also met with Congressman Conyers. His work is broadcast frequently in Great Britain and has been a guest on Bill Moyers. It is only the mainstream media here that won’t touch him or delve into the voter fraud issue. Hmmm maybe because most of the media here is owned by major corporations. Again, I said I knew that I would not change minds of those opposed to opening their eyes. If the shoe was on the other foot you would be screaming bloody murder about voter fraud by democrats. At least I consider the possibilty and even concede that I would be interested in knowing of cases of voter fraud by the democrats.

Posted by: Carolina at August 24, 2007 10:32 AM
Comment #230532

Rhinehold, its me again. I have some additional thoughts to share. I was going to be big and not respond to your attempts to belittle and shame me for my researched thoughts and musings but on second thought I decided I am no better than you so here goes. Since you are so sure there was no voter fraud: “There was no election theft.” your quote. Please share your research to support that absolute. Also, I live in a small southern coastal town (yes imagine that a democrat in South Carolina and a liberal to boot) and one night on my way home on a dark and lonely road I was forcibly removed from my car through the roof no less. The spaceship just dropped me off after a couple of days of testing and examination. After all the prodding and testing by the space aliens, they deemed me exceptionally bright for a human and asked that I be sure and share my wisdom with others. What they failed to mention is that some people wouldn’t appreciate or believe my pearls of wisdom. So alas we are back to square one.
***To other posters and watchblog monitor, I am not sure if my response to the alien thing is within guidelines as it is off topic but I was responding to a post directed to me. If I strayed into forbidden territory, please forgive me. I will also say this will be my last posting on this topic as I do not want to continue to test the bounds of what is considered acceptable posting.

Posted by: Carolina at August 24, 2007 11:27 AM
Comment #230543

Bills: You missed the Department of Energy. It used to be a social club for nuclear industry executives. When the nuclear industry fell on hard times, it was converted into a social club for oil executives.

In the best interests of the American people, the Department of Energy should be disbanded and replaced at the cabinet level by the National Science Foundation. In addition, the members of the NSF should be chosen by scientists and not by the president. No pseudoscientists allowed.

The corporations should have representation in all the cabinets but they should never be allowed the power to right policy.

Posted by: jlw at August 24, 2007 12:51 PM
Comment #230545

But not everyone agrees. Look at what lead Republican Hoekstra said today…

In another reaction Friday, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee also said he disagreed with Warners’s idea, but that Bush needs to move away from trying to establish democracy in Iraq and concentrate instead on security and stability.

“Establishing a democracy in the time frame that we’ve wanted to do it, over the period of three to five years, was too big of a reach,” Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra said.

But didn’t Pete hear the big speech by Bush to veterans about how democracy is within reach in Iraq? How dare he give up! Coward! Traitor!

Really, can’t these Republican leaders in the House and Senate just get behind this administration’s “plan” for victory?

Posted by: chris2x at August 24, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #230548

I guess if Bush is right, we should stay in Iraq at least 15 to 20 years and when 58,000 Americans and several million Iraqis are dead, we can declare peace with honor and pull out. Then Iraq can finish it’s civil war.

How many boat people have already fled Iraq? Two million?

Posted by: jlw at August 24, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #230555
Rhinehold, I again refer you to Greg palast

I’ll tell you what. I’ll believe everything that Greg Palast writes if you agree to believe everything that Stephen F Hayes writes.


I mean, it is written down and we all know that if it is written down then it’s true.

But seriously, since you aren’t going to respond it really doesn’t matter, however Palast hangs his ‘proof’ on how the exit polling was off a bit and that Jeb Bush tried to ensure that no felons voted in 2000 and screwed up the job. It is incompetence, not conspiracy, unless it can be proven otherwise, which hasn’t been done.

If your leanings are towards ‘How could Bush have one, he’s a complete moron! There must be something going on…’ then you will most likely read Palast and say ‘Yeah, see! I was right!’

However, if you are not looking for a conspiracy, there really isn’t one there, sorry. To convince someone who isn’t looking for a conspiracy that there is one, you are going to need to actually have PROOF, not theory.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 24, 2007 1:44 PM
Comment #230564

While Republican leaders try to come to terms with an inept President who hoisted his Presidency on the petard of Iraq sounds comical it is indeed a tragedy. When Bush decided to invade Iraq right after 911 why wasn’t Rove there telling him it could very well sabotage his entire presidency? I thought for at least a minute that Bush had at least guts to lay it all on the line so. Now, it seems, his preoccupation with Iraq had less to do with political guts than shear arrogance and a possible desire to upstage/avenge his father. In the meantime, what started off as a promising conservative agenda (remember the disastrous tax cuts?) has turned into nothing accomplished save stacking the Supreme Court with idealogical conservatives. Even the conservative agenda has been a victim to this administration’s arrogance.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld are the epitamy of being drunk with power. They always wanted to take out Saddam Hussein and they used the 911 attacks to further their agenda. The tragedy is born by our service men, women, their families, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and their families.

Posted by: chris2x at August 24, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #230566


I was thinking along those same lines. Except let’s exile him (GWB of course, oh hell, might as well send chaney too) to his beloved “democratic” Iraq! With no secret service or military guard.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 24, 2007 2:44 PM
Comment #230577
Jeb Bush tried to ensure that no felons voted in 2000 and screwed up the job. It is incompetence, not conspiracy, unless it can be proven otherwise, which hasn’t been done.

Rhinehold, they managed to come up with a purge list that was 88% Black.

But I’m willing to bygones be bygones, if you guys let the governor of Ohio purge all white males named Ricky Bobby.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 24, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #230609
Rhinehold, they managed to come up with a purge list that was 88% Black.

Which proves nothing, other than perhaps an issue with a large percentage of black males getting felonies instead of misdemeanors compared to whites… Unless you have some insight into the methods used? OR do you envison a group of crusty white men sitting in a room going through the original list and just picking out the black ‘sounding’ names? And again, without some evidence to that, the assumption is just that.

But I’m willing to bygones be bygones, if you guys let the governor of Ohio purge all white males named Ricky Bobby.

If they are also felons and shouldn’t be voting, I’m all for it. Otherwise, that would be racist… wouldn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 24, 2007 8:40 PM
Comment #230641

I think my point was a bit too subtle. The list was made my matching people who were similar to known felons based on their race and having a similar (but not identical) name.

In other words, innocent people were disenfranchised because of their race and because their name was similar to a felon’s. Hence my tongue-in-cheek “eye for an eye” suggestion.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 25, 2007 8:53 AM
Comment #230646

Oh, I got the point, but it was a bit invalid because a) not all who were mistaken were black and b) it was a simple case of INCOMPETENCE, not an attempt to purposely disenfranchise anyone who shouldn’t have been. At least, unless someone has any other evidence that provided?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 25, 2007 11:34 AM
Comment #230714

Rhinehold- Why is it that you expect every every one to prove or
provide evidence to you about their posts? Since
you are doing the accusations you also should be
providing the evidence disproving what they have
posted, not the other way around. I guess you might
consider it a professional courtesy.

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 26, 2007 6:12 AM
Post a comment