Third Party & Independents: Archives

Boxer’s my hero,

…if you’re going to become the voice of diplomacy — this is just a helpful point — when Senator Voinovich mentioned the issue of tsunami relief, you said — your first words were, “The tsunami was a wonderful opportunity for us.” Now, the tsunami was one of the worst tragedies of our lifetime — one of the worst — and it’s going to have a 10-year impact on rebuilding that area. I was very disappointed in your statement. I think you blew the opportunity.

I fell off the couch laughing! “this is just a helpful point…” Boxer rocks!

Joseph Biden and Chuck Hagel both appeared to be hitting Rice hard from non-partisan perspectives trying to uncover whether or not Rice and the administration has learned anything from their mistakes, or if they, in fact, have not learned anything and are willing and able to make those same mistakes again.

Rice’s reluctance to answer them directly left a lot of room for doubt as to whether lessons have been learned.

More importantly however was her unwillingness to state that if Iran acceded to our demands, that she would work with them. She was blatant as to her religious bigotry in reference to Iran being a theocracy of Islam and refusal to deal with them as long as Iranians were not dutifully converted to American ideals. Very, very telling.

AP—

This just proves my point: she is unfit for the job of Secretary of State; she hasn’t a clue.

David—

And yet she was confirmed anyway. Now if the Democrats really want grow a new set, they would seek to hold up her nomination altogether. It will naever happen, but hey a guy needs to dream.

Mr. Martin, I agree. She would have been confirmed in the end, anyway, but, a fight by D’s would have been good for a few hundred million in free publicity about the issues in your article. The D’s don’t have a clue as to how to make the best of their minority status.

Dem’s continue to confirm and reaffirm my decision to leave the party years ago. It was obvious back in the days of Gingrich that Dem’s days were numbered. They have simply lost their understanding of centrist moderate politics and how the political power game is played.

I agree; there is far too much pandering to once side or the other. The Democrats cannot offer effective leadership because they do not know where they want to take the country. They are allowing the Republicans to set the agenda time and again, and continually fail to offer a viable alternative. The current Social Security Debate is a perfect case in point. Where is the Democratic alternative? Why aren’t the Democrats in front of the camera every day proclaiming the foolishness of Bush’s current course?

Is it lack of leadership from the top, and do you think Howard Dean if he succeeds in winning the Democratic national chair, be able to provide that leadership. Will he be able to put together a viable platform that addresses the issue American seem to care most about? I for one hope he wins…

Good Article, V. Edward.
In fact, I agree so much, I have nothing to add.

AP,
I too, think Sen. Boxer is one great and gutsy lady. The woman never fails to stand up for us Californian’s and for what she believes. And as she demonstrated yesterday, she doesn’t ever hesitate to use the administrations own words against them.
It completely cracked me up how she just kept quoting Condi’s contradictory statements, both before and after the Iraq war, and was in turn accused of trying to impugn her integrity and honesty!
Bloody hilarious.
I’ll tell you what, if there were a few more Democrats on the Hill like her, rather than leave the Party, I’d stay, and fight, and work my fingers to the bone for them.

David:
“They have simply lost their understanding of centrist moderate politics and how the political power game is played.”

I think the problem is that they’ve become too moderately centrist, rather than stand by their core liberal beliefs, but I agree that they don’t seem to understand the new political climate of today’s power game.

Ooops! That should be: before and after the Iraq war _started_.

Yes, a few choice moments. She’s never lost her “respect for the truth.” What a great phrase! Wonder if that’s the same as ‘telling the truth’?

Thou dost protest too much. Can’t you put the national security of our country past your own predjudices.

The fact of the matter is, if you were against the war in Iraq, anyone who criticizes it on national TV is your hero.

Chuck Hagel may have an R after his name, but he is only critical of the Bush administration to get on TV. This is from the John McCain playbook, it is right there in the first chapter.

You guys may not trust this administration, but the majority of Americans do. And guess what Senators representing the majority of Americans will confirm her. Even the Ted Kennedy’s drinking buddy who represents my state of CT voted for her.

I think you just have not convinced the rest of us how morally and intellectually superior you are to the rest of us. Get louder. Let us know how smart you are and how evil and stupid we are.

Peter,
“…Can’t you put the national security of our country past your own predjudices.”

You bet. I’ll keep it simple.

Fact: 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch.

Fact: A recession, two wars, and an enormous deficit happened on Bush’s watch.

“You guys may not trust this administration, but the majority of Americans do.”

That’s great, but it’s no reason to suspend critical thinking, is it? I’m just not interested in the Britney Spears school of conservative thinking, the ‘let’s just trust the President’ mentality.

Fact: Bush administration officials lied repeatedly to the public in order to convince us to invade Iraq. This has been blogged endlessly. If you’re not certain that’s a fact, let me know, and I’d be happy to provide some really choice quotes. Personally, there’s a Rumsfeld whopper that’s my favorite.

Feel free to explain how you’re putting national security ahead of your own prejudices. It sounds like you’re in favor of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Other than being a Bush supporter, why do you favor it?

Peter:

Liberals do not think Republicans are stupid. Republicans are NOT stupid. Its just that Liberals live in Reality. Understand?

Peter:
“Thou dost protest too much.”

And you Republican’s don’t protest enough.

“Can’t you put the national security of our country past your own predjudices.”

National Security was her old job - and since she did very poorly with that, why should anyone trust her to be the Secretary of State? Maybe it is your own prejudices that are keeping you from seeing Condi Rice clearly.

“The fact of the matter is, if you were against the war in Iraq, anyone who criticizes it on national TV is your hero.”

They manipulated evidence and LIED to get us into the Iraq war. They LIED before the UN in an attempt to make our allies join us, and bad-mouthed those who didn’t buy into the LIE. They didn’t go in with enough troops, and those troops were poorly equipped. Once there, they stationed soldiers to protect the oil fields, but not to secure enormous stockpiles of explosives - the same explosives which are now being used to make the bombs that are blowing up our soldiers. They incarcerated many people in the same prison that Saddam tortured people in - and sanctioned the use of torture on those prisoners - many whom were innocent. The war is a quaqmire of enormous proportions. The insurgency is growing and Al Qaeda is now recruiting these seasoned insurgents. The election which they keep pointing to as the holy grail of this whole debacle will have no names on the ballots as the candidates are too afraid of being murdered - and the people have no idea who or what they will be voting for. There there is no withdraw of our troops in sight. So far they have spent 130 billion of our tax dollars - and will have to spend plenty more before it is over.
In light of all this, the question really is, why aren’t some of you Republican’s doing a little critizising of your party’s leaders?

But to answer your question: Yeah, those who are brave enough to stand up for what they believe in the face of the new Republican tendency to call anyone who doesn’t agree with them Anti-American Traitors, is a hero in my opinion. And I wish there were a whole lot more who would do so.

“Chuck Hagel may have an R after his name, but he is only critical of the Bush administration to get on TV. This is from the John McCain playbook, it is right there in the first chapter.”

Have you ever entertained the thought that maybe they honestly don’t like the job this administration is doing?

“You guys may not trust this administration,”

This is an understatement.

“but the majority of Americans do.”

And the question here is: Why?

“And guess what Senators representing the majority of Americans will confirm her.”

Not quite yet.

“Even the Ted Kennedy’s drinking buddy who represents my state of CT voted for her.”

Yeah, she’ll eventually be confirmed. No doubt of that.
But I personally think every single Democrat should have voted against her.

“I think you just have not convinced the rest of us how morally and intellectually superior you are to the rest of us.”

Its not about how smart or moral one is - but how blinkered and duped you remain by this leadership.

“Get louder.”

I agree, we need to get _much_ louder.

Peter said: “Chuck Hagel may have an R after his name, but he is only critical of the Bush administration to get on TV. This is from the John McCain playbook, it is right there in the first chapter.”

This is exactly the kind of circular logic that will defeat Republicans. It is classic Bushspeak, “you are with us, or, you are not a Real Republican, you are with us, or, you are not a Real American, you are with us, or, you are not Really Patriotic. I.E. we are holy, we are infallible, we are not capable of error or wrong decisions, and any who would claim otherwise is either a Red or should be dead.

Thankfully, Peter, there are enough respected Republicans like Powell, and even C. Rice this week, who see the wisdom of not engaging Bush’s circular logic. Rice admitted to major mistakes in our role in Iraq. Powell, Hagel, even the Heritage Foundation, are unwilling to give up the power they fought so hard to acquire by engaging in the kind of circular logic you just displayed. These experienced people know, there is no credibility in the long run for those who preach their own perfection and demean their critics too harshly in a democracy.

Peter,

This really has nothing to do with moral or any other kind of superiority; it has to do with the truth and the current Administration’s refusal to embrace it. When are the Republicans going to put aside their own selfishness (and talk about moral superiority), long enough to think about the welfare of the nation as whole?

As for the majority of American trusting G.W. Bush, heaven help them and the rest of us. What pray-tell has inspired and the majority of American to trust a man who has continually lied to you, or obfuscated the truth? G.W. Bush has not EARNED my trust but he certainly has earned my ire.

WHOA. Take it easy. I hope everyone feels better. Now that that is behind we can move on to some facts and opinion.

Peter,
“”…Can’t you put the national security of our country past your own predjudices.”“

“You bet. I’ll keep it simple.”

Listen, you may not think a black woman is capable of being Secretary of State, but that is your own ignorance. Why should my children’s lives be endangered for your dummycrat logic.

“Fact: 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch.”

Another Fact: Al Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Tenet, Clinton, Her Hubby, Chelsea, Halfbright, Gore, Reagan, Bush 1, not even Nixon is responsible. In fact terrorists have attacked Americans under every Administration since Carter.

Another Fact: Bush is the first one to do something about it.

“Fact: A recession, two wars, and an enormous deficit happened on Bush’s watch.”

Another Fact: small recession inherited from Bubba

Another Fact: One war, two theaters. It is called a war on terror. You may be uncomfortable about this, but you will get used to that idea.

“”You guys may not trust this administration, but the majority of Americans do.”“

“That’s great, but it’s no reason to suspend critical thinking, is it? I’m just not interested in the Britney Spears school of conservative thinking, the ‘let’s just trust the President’ mentality.”

Critical thinking is not coming up with some paranoid conspiracy. Liberals can think critically, but when you came up with these fantasies about the Bush adminstration, the American people rejected it. The Iraq theater in the war on terror was not exactly Bush’s best political move. He opened himself up to defeat by doing the right thing. He only won because there was no critical thinking on the other side.

“Fact: Bush administration officials lied repeatedly to the public in order to convince us to invade Iraq. This has been blogged endlessly. If you’re not certain that’s a fact, let me know, and I’d be happy to provide some really choice quotes. Personally, there’s a Rumsfeld whopper that’s my favorite.”

Fact: Saddam harbored terrorists.

Fact: Saddam wished to acquire WMD.

Fact: Saddam used WMD on minorities.

Fact: When Saddam-supported WMD was launched against a major American city, you would have blamed Bush.

Fact: Iraqis have a shot at the freedom we enjoy in this country.

“Feel free to explain how you’re putting national security ahead of your own prejudices. It sounds like you’re in favor of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Other than being a Bush supporter, why do you favor it? “

I am not prejudice. I don’t think there is any job black women can’t do.

I am in favor of killing terrorists who threaten my children. I am in favor of democracy and capitalism. I am in favor of holding dictators accountable for their actions. I am in favor of America being the strongest nation on earth. I am in favor America maintaining sovereignty over herself.

“Peter:

Liberals do not think Republicans are stupid. Republicans are NOT stupid. Its just that Liberals live in Reality. Understand? “

I don’t understand. I seem to be a rational person, why am I so far away from reality? Is it not just a different perspective? Can I not disagree without being called a Nazi?

“Peter said: “”Chuck Hagel may have an R after his name, but he is only critical of the Bush administration to get on TV. This is from the John McCain playbook, it is right there in the first chapter.”“

This is exactly the kind of circular logic that will defeat Republicans. It is classic Bushspeak, “you are with us, or, you are not a Real Republican, you are with us, or, you are not a Real American, you are with us, or, you are not Really Patriotic. I.E. we are holy, we are infallible, we are not capable of error or wrong decisions, and any who would claim otherwise is either a Red or should be dead.

Thankfully, Peter, there are enough respected Republicans like Powell, and even C. Rice this week, who see the wisdom of not engaging Bush’s circular logic. Rice admitted to major mistakes in our role in Iraq. Powell, Hagel, even the Heritage Foundation, are unwilling to give up the power they fought so hard to acquire by engaging in the kind of circular logic you just displayed. These experienced people know, there is no credibility in the long run for those who preach their own perfection and demean their critics too harshly in a democracy.”

This is somewhat fair, but you must admit that both sides do this. Zell Miller has been called everything under the sun. I would probably put all 100 senators in the Hagel class. As a taxpayer and citizen, I don’t really know what we get for the Institution of the Senate. Even the democrats in the House are more fun.

You must also admit that if Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, or Cheney resigned and came to your side of the Iraq war, you would take them back in a hurry. Just for the embarassment of Bush.

“Peter,

This really has nothing to do with moral or any other kind of superiority; it has to do with the truth and the current Administration’s refusal to embrace it. When are the Republicans going to put aside their own selfishness (and talk about moral superiority), long enough to think about the welfare of the nation as whole?”

They ARE thinking about the welfare of the nation as a whole, they just draw a different conclusion. Without being morally superior, what are some of the possible reasons that George Bush expanded the war on terror to Iraq. Could one of them be that he thought(and thinks) it is the right thing to do. Is that possible. You may not think it is right, but maybe he does.

“As for the majority of American trusting G.W. Bush, heaven help them and the rest of us. What pray-tell has inspired and the majority of American to trust a man who has continually lied to you, or obfuscated the truth? G.W. Bush has not EARNED my trust but he certainly has earned my ire. “

He has not earned my DISTRUST. I don’t think he has ever lied to me. Look at those protesters in Washington today. What do they think of me? Am I a Nazi supporter? Warmonger? What about the 60 million that voted with me? My point about Rice is that you think it is January 2004, not 2005. You spent all last year on this and lost, soundly. Baba Boxer just showed everyone why your party is impotent.

Honestly, keep it up. Stay superior. Let the moderates in the country know how you really feel. Let your emotions guide you to victory in ‘08

Peter:
“Listen, you may not think a black woman is capable of being Secretary of State, but that is your own ignorance.”

Listen yourself, the ignorance is your own for assuming that any of us who would argue with you might have a problem with the fact that she is either black or female.
What most of us don’t seem to like is fact that she was incompetent in her last job, and that she seems to have a problem with admitting to any of her own, or the presidents, very serious mistakes. And both are good reasons she doesn’t deserve to be the Sec. of State.

“Why should my children’s lives be endangered”

Why, indeed? Especially by someone who ignored the repeated warnings of an experienced terrorist expert like Richard Clarke, as well as a memo alarmingly entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US? This is someone you feel safe with to lead our diplomatic relations for the next four years?
That’s some starry-eyed misplaced trust you’ve got there.

“dummycrat logic.”

Republican’t handle the truth?
But why bother with that when you can just call it racist misogyny, right?

“Al Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks,”

And Condi was responsible for National Security before those attacks - a job at which she failed after being repeatedly warned by a man who had much more knowledge and experience in dealing with the subject of terrorism than she did at that time. In fact, none of her previous credentials (lofty as some of them were) would’ve ever suggested she actually deserved to hold as serious a cabinet position as National Security Director - and after the job she has done over the past four years, to be further elevated to the position of Sec. of State.

“Stay superior.”

After reading your post, I think that should be a cake walk for the majority of us…

Peter,

“Listen, you may not think a black woman is capable of being Secretary of State, but that is your own ignorance. Why should my children’s lives be endangered for your dummycrat logic.”

I’m sorry, I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion.

Also, I have children. I don’t want them drafted and sent to Iraq. That is endangering lives in a very real, concrete sense. It has cost too many their lives already.

Guess I’m doomed by my “ignorance” and “dummycrat logic.”
Really, I think you make some very good points & counterpoints. Please be careful when making a statement like the following (about fighting terrorism):

“Another Fact: Bush is the first one to do something about it.”

I think I understand what you mean, but factually, what you’re saying is wrong. Most President have taken actions against terrorism.

“Critical thinking is not coming up with some paranoid conspiracy”

What paranoid conspiracy are you referring to? What’s might be happening is that you are confusing what I write with what you believe to be true of liberals. Please do not assume you know what I think, but of course, feel free to light into what I write!

If the claim of racism towards liberals is so ridiculous, why does it always strike a nerve? I could have said you have 2 heads and you would assume that I am ridiculous. If it is so ridiculous that liberals are racist why even justify a repsonse?

For the sake of argument let us assume that Richard Clarke is NOT just a political whore who would say anything to sell a book. Let us assume he went to GWB and the national security council on 1/21/01 and said Al Qaeda will attack us, what do we do?

Would it be okay with you if we dropped a nuke on Kabul to prevent 9/11? Do you have the stomach for that? Do you have the stomach to drop a nuke on Pyongyang or Tehren tomorrow morning? Why do you pretend you would have supported any pre-emptive action against the Taliban, when you show your true colors on the subject of Iraq.

When I Said

“Another Fact: Bush is the first one to do something about it.”

I meant the first one to take the problem seriously

[Comments deleted for critiquing other commenter’s here rather than their message — WB manager. ]

Listen, you may not think a black woman is capable of being Secretary of State…

Peter, even among blacks there are people who lack common sense. I know Republicans like to idolize African Americans and put them on a pedestal, but every once in a while you run across a bad apple.

If the claim of racism towards liberals is so ridiculous, why does it always strike a nerve?

Peter, are you still abusing your children?

Seriously, you’re spouting nothing but right-wing radio spin.

Another Fact: Al Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Tenet, Clinton, Her Hubby, Chelsea, Halfbright, Gore, Reagan, Bush 1, not even Nixon is responsible.

You left out Saddam Hussein. He’s not responsible either.