Excellent advice. But it may be a day late.

I agree. We should all get a pass for the stupid things we did and said when we were under 25, but, we should also honestly admit what we did and move on. Sen. Kerry seems to have a very hard time determining what the proper position is on this issue. That in itself is a problem. He is being dishonest with us about something that in the final analysis is unimportant because most of us will forgive past failures if they are admitted.

And don't tell me that he doesn't think what he did was wrong. If he doesn't feel that way then why is he wasting so much time and energy trying to "nuance" his actions.

I've been thinking all along that Kerry needs to have his "Sister Souljah" moment, and wondering what it might be. Maybe his own past (re Vietnam, or maybe re some other issue he's waffled on) might be a place to start.

I can give Kerry a pass on the anti-war theatrics of youth. What troubles me is that he did not understand America's role and motivations in the Vietnam war and that does not seem to have change since then. This misunderstanding has sever implications for his leadership potential in the War on Terror.

While I believe that is the right thing to do, it is poor political advice IMHO. It might help a bit with the undecideds, but it would really piss off his base.

A reasonable approach, if he was answerable to reasonable people. He counts among his supporters scores of his contemporaries, for whom their opposition to the Vietnam war, in all its many forms and reasons, is the quintisential defining moment in their lives. We see it every day in the media's fascination in comparing every conflict with Vietnam, in the same way they try and remind people of how relevent they were in '73 by tacking "gate" onto the end of every potential scandal. Vietnam War opposition gave these people meaning in their life and most of them feel they were significant because of what they did. It would be suicide for him to effectively say "gee, weren't we simplistic and overly dramatic?" Kerrey, by his own actions, inactions, words and lack of words, has placed himself between Scylla and Charybdis. The RNC is now just watching him twist in the wind.

I think it's fantastic and reasonable advice too, but if he said that he might as well say "go vote for Nader".

I dunno about this. Without Nader, I'd say that this is great advice. But my biggest nightmare is Iraq descending into chaos, Nader gaining support as the anti-war candidate, and Bush winning the election, thus ensuring four more years of disaster in the Middle East and at home.

This is like the "advice" to a woman in labor, to "breathe." As if the pain can go away. Nope.

Worse, if flop-flop (gobble-gobble) were to take this advice he'd manage to shed those anti-war buffoons who are only voting for him because they hate the idea America is actually doing the right things in the Mideast.

Do you realize he'd then get less votes than Perot?

oh, and by the way, he already admitted on MTP that his language went too far.

Have to concur with your saying that this whole controversy doesn't mean two shits, Michael. Means enough to post something to remind people of that fact, however. So, good job. Alot of folks complained that Gore had way too many advisers tearing him in a thousand different directions on everything. I think maybe Kerry's got a thousand different advisors inside his head. A good explanation, no? And Bob Shrum can't be helping things.

As for any and all thoughts of a possibly related Sister Souljah moment, I don't think you can contrive that sort of thing. Clinton never really planned out his Souljah speech months in advance. He did it pretty much on the spot. I'm hoping Kerry is simply waiting for the right impromtu moment to give his "Hey Kids, Grow Up" speech to the anti-war crowd. Then again, something like that would require the thousand advising voices in his head to all think in unison so maybe it'll never happen. Who knows?

I've been unable to follow Senator Kerry through the maze of stories about the medals. It doesn't seem as if he is going to be able to turn around and march straight out of it with the truth: Medals or ribbons; the same or different; his own or someone else's; myth or fact; VVAW's idea or RAM slant. I want to say, "Senator, just tell the truth," but I think if he's going to have a Sister Souljah moment, he'll have to repudiate himself.

That was supposed to be his Sister Souljah moment on GMA. He muddled it.

MJT,

Of all the stupid things Kerry has done in his life, his lies about what he did with his medals are the least of his sins.

After all, Kerry lied about attending the Kansas City meeting where the VVAW debated assasinating Congressional leaders. When is the press going to nail him on this? He also went to Paris and met with North Vietnamese leaders while the war was still going on. He denounced his fellow vets as war criminals. This man is a complete disgrace.

There was nothing wrong with opposing the Vietnam war. Everything was wrong with the way Kerry did it.

Grant,

I think maybe Kerry's got a thousand different advisors inside his head.

Kerry's problem is he's got a thousand different positions on every issue inside his head. Why don't you just admit that Kerry is a fatally flawed candidate? This guy will say whatever he thinks is expedient at any given moment and then he tries to lie his way out of his contradictions.

"Kerry needs his Sister Soljah Moment" That pretty much somes up everything wrong with the Democratic party. He must find a way to contrive a scenario where he can attack his own base in a way which appeals to mainstream America so as to gain political support knowing the base will vote for him anyway. Meanwhile Bush does what he thinks is right. Kerry is truly an empty suit. A man without a core or a center. The Democrats could not have picked a worse candidate. The country sees through Kerry because he is an obvious phony. A man who became famous as an anti-war radical activist who is now trying to climb to the presidency as a patriotic veteran. That is why what he did in 1971 matters. Because he made it the causa bella of his candidacy. I pity this country if he becomes president. But I doubt it will happen. And Clinton had his Sister Souljah moment in February. It's a little late for JFK. And what happened to Sister Souljah anyway?

I am happy to give a blanket amnesty to all politicians' drug taking and non-criminal activities which occurred prior to their 30th birthdays or their assuming public office, whichever is earlier. We've all been young and dumb.

What I won't give a pass on is those politicians who lie about it or won't give straight answers. I couldn't care less what Kerry threw over the fence. It matters not one whit! A varying and/or contradictory explanation betrays a character flaw however that should get factored into an assessment of the candidate.

Your advice MT should have been taken months and months ago.

I've been in anxious anticipation for the last two days watiting for this one to break, but I have to admit that after hearing the interview, I was dissapointed. This appears to be a non-story. Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying watching Lurch squirm, but it's much ado about nothing, really.

Can this simply be what happens when a spoiled, insular junior Senator gets his long hidden habits of mediocrity exposed to national scrutiny?

The nomination—sown up, or blown up?

Even if Kerry completely and honestly changed his mind, and unequivocally would start to support the war, I still wouldn't vote for him. The chief reason is that I am not a US citizen :-), but I also wouldn't vote for him for the exact same reason I wouldn't have voted for Joe Lieberman.

I just don't believe that today's Democratic Party, which is far too far to the left, could create a forceful war supporting cabinet or to get the broad support it needs to do its job. After seeing that Howard Dean surged so far ahead in the beginning (thanks God he failed), it seems the anti-war left is way too powerful to allow a war supporting cabinet from the Democratic Party.

Right now I see that only the Republicans can line up a war cabinet and have the background support it needs.

Vilmos

Too late, Michael. He's already been caught explicitly and stupidly lying (as a delayed result of the contradiction between what he said in 1971 and what he said while trying to win his Senate seat in 1984). The main hope for the Democrats now is that Bush's own set of stupid lies will catch up with him -- as, in Iraq, they apprently are. If the entire country explodes after we light the fuse at Fallujah, Kerry's medal lie will be back-page news. Christ, what a depressing election.

MJT

I don’t care for John Kerry, but I’ll throw him a rope all the same.

As in enough rope to hang himself? Or is it as Roger says too late? Simon saaaays Roger! But it is nice of you to offer him help.

Gene

I've been thinking all along that Kerry needs to have his "Sister Souljah" moment, and wondering what it might be. Maybe his own past...

Now therein lies the rub doesn't it, how does he have this moment WITH HIMSELF!

Grant

You now I love you Grant but...

Have to concur with your saying that this whole controversy doesn't mean two shits, Michael.

Your right it's worth 10+ piles of shit. Grant you are in a minority on this. Kerry has a problem with TRUTH! He is all things to all people, he's Jewish, he's Catholic, he votes for things before he votes against it. He wants the opportunity to carry support for both sides of every issue, Pro-War, Anti-War. YOU NAME IT! Even when Bush changes his mind he comes across definite. I heard him say the other day... "Hey, I changed my mind, so what!" When have you heard carry say he has changed his mind? He always paints positions as if he has held it prior, regardless of how contradictory it sounds.

Doug

Meanwhile Bush does what he thinks is right…The Democrats could not have picked a worse candidate.

Doug you have it right. I know John Kerry, and I know John Edwards, THEY PICKED THE WRONG JOHN!!!! Kerry is a dead man walking, I don’t care what the polls say. I have got two words…DEBATES…CONVENTIONS! After that then let’s see the polls. I am a former Dukakis and Mondale supporter, I campaigned for McGovern as a teenager, I know the feel in the air and it does not bode well for Democrats.

I implore you one more time my Democratic friends. Become the Party of Clinton’s Policies, not Politics and Morals. You have unfortunately traded in the former for the latter. -JSF

Samuel, it's late, and I myself am just about ready to turn in, but here's a pertinent question: How many of the delegates pledged to Kerry at this point are bound by this pledge? By law? It seems like I remember it being different state by state.

But if Kerry starts to look bad, are there any scenarios in which the Democrats can ditch him? Other than if he opts out on his own, say for ostensible reasons of health.

It would be something, wouldn't it, if we had a wide-open convention and several votes? It would certainly dominate the news... and might have the potential to create an instant star. Someone like Harold Ford (I know he's too young). Evan Bayh (all I know is that he has his father's name and I think he might have be pro-war.)

I do expect him to act like an adult and be honest about it, however. He is, after all, auditioning for president of the United States.

So you'd expect the same of the sitting president as well, right, Michael?

Gimme a break.

Kerry is rapidly blowing any chance that people will actually vote FOR him as opposed to AGAINST Bush. To win he will need more than the 45% who despise the President, yet he can't seem to say anything without appearing arrogant or commiting a gaffe.

I don't understand why the anti-Kerry forces are making such a big deal over this. I guess they feel genuine outrage over possibly-conflicting statements from 1971, but basically they're just making front-page news over Kerry's war medals. Is that really a smart move?

First Kerry suckered his opponents into demanding the release of his war record, then they complained his war injuries weren't serious enough, now they want to talk about his medals.

Up next: Republicans demand investigation into whether Kerry really saved a man's life under fire.

We should all get a pass for the stupid things we did and said when we were under 25, but, we should also honestly admit what we did and move on.

President Bush, the press core asked, have you ever used Cocaine?

Terrance,

"Gimme a break."

OK, here's your break:

Critics: He's a (gasp!) cripple!

FDR: The only the we have to fear is fear itself.

Critics: He's a commie!

MLK: I have a dream.

Critics: He lied about his medals.

Kerry: Republicans do too!

You want to be president? Act like one.

Obviously, "the" should be "thing".

If y'all are willing to cut me some slack, I hope you'll be equally willing for our other fellow Americans, even those named Kerry and Bush...

Ged - please source

"Republicans do too!" - John Kerry

Thanks. I'll go ahead and believe you on the other two quotes.

So according to the far right/media...

George W. Bush's behavior during the Vietnam Era: irrelevant.

Bill Clinton's behavior during the Vietnam Era: relevant.

John Kerry in Vietnam: irrelevant.

John Kerry immediately post-Vietnam: relevant.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Kerry doesn't need a "Sister Souljah moment." All he needs to do is keep Democrats angry. This is not a swing-voter election. This is a base election. Hardcore Republicans are gonna swarm the polls and vote for Bush no matter what happens; in fact, the worse he does (and yes, it is possible for his presidency to actually get worse), the more devoted they will become. They have drunk the Kool-Aid, bought their purple robes and Nikes, and they are waiting for the comet to come in November. The only thing that can win the election for Kerry is to get every pissed-off Democrat to the polls. Democrats outnumber Republicans, but they don't vote in the same numbers. If the base turns out, Kerry wins.

A side note: even if "swing voters" were totally necessary to the election, I still wouldn't have any respect for them. It's been four years. If you don't have your mind made up already, you probably have to be watered twice a day, and you shouldn't get a vote.

miklos

In all honesty i don't think the delegates will turn on him (Kerry), unless of course Hillary were to throw in her hat. That of course would cause another debacle at the Convention for the Democrats and would actually make things worse, I don't expaect that to happen. I still think Bush will get 53-57% of the vote, and the Democrats will still remain bitter about 2000.

Why don't you guys leave John Kerry in peace. The man had a severe medical operation last year, removing his prostate (google Kerry, prostate). If he isn't impotent, at least he might be on medicine and that's why he seems so confused and worn out. Why does a 30 year old story have to be dragged out of the swamp to hurt a 60 year old man? Democrats are to blame too. Democrats should let Kerry enjoy the money he acumulated during a lifetime of hard work. Let the man enjoy skiing in Idaho, sailing his million dollar yacht, his castle in France, his grandchildren and friends. The man deserves his rest and our our gratitude for his service. If you love Kerry, vote for Bush and let Kerry enjoy his retirement.

"Ged - please source"

No Sweat. From the GMA transcript:

"i mean, this is a controversy that the republicans are pushing , the republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me. and this comes from a president and a republican party that can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the national guard. i'm not going to stand for it."

Are the Republicans pushing this controversy? Yes, they are. The sky is also blue. The question he was asked came from a fellow American, Charlie Gibson, who himself was at the protest, not the Republicans.

Charlie T.,

If you think I or those like me are on the far-right, you are deluding yourself and not only destroying your party, but depriving our country of what it most needs - an alternative movement that could put together a viable majority, if necessary.

Your tradition is better than that.

"They have drunk the Kool-Aid, bought their purple robes and Nikes, and they are waiting for the comet to come in November."

So your theory is that half of your own country is the equivalent of a suicidal cult? Do you get out much?

Your contempt makes my life more difficult, your blindness makes your own.

The democrats tell us to vote for "anyone But Bush". In fact, I saw Arianna H on TV pumping that same line. "When the house is on fire, don't remodel".

This is bullshit. Its a complete perversion of what American democracy stands for.

I don't agree with many of Bush's decisions. In fact, I think he is a fuckup president. I want States to have the right to decide gay marriage, medical marijuana, abortion, gun control etc etc etc. I do not want Mr. Ashcroft and Cohorts busting in on 80 year old cancer patients and taking them to jail because they grew their own pot and smoked it to feel better.

If the State of California decided to make Gay marriage a sanctioned thing, then I say "Go Cali!", if Ohio wants to pass a law that doesn't acknowledge gay mariages, I say "Go Ohio!", either gay couples will not live in Ohio (their choice), or they will try to convience the state to change its mind... let people vote for their own freedoms.

Bush, with his Marriage protection, Late Term Abortion and policing of little old ladies, is just as Unamerican as the Anybody But Bush campaign.

But, I am in a quandry, do I vote for a President who I beleieve doesn't support my rights as a free citizen of the United States, but at least has an agenda... or do I vote for the piece of flotsam that washed up on the beach of the democratic party?

John Kerry who apparently stands for nothing, or GW Bush, who stands for the kind of government that our forefathers feared would someday arise?

I want a REAL CHOICE!

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Muncher of the ChaoAcorn
Chatterer of the Words of Eris

To Charlie T.

George W. Bush's behavior during the Vietnam Era:
(Actual) Joined Air National Guard, trained as fighter pilot, received high evaluations, did not volunteer for Vietnam, unit was not called up, requested/received permission to report to different base while doing political work, satisfied enlistment requirements, received honorable discharge.
(According to GWB) Irrelevant, but honorable.
(According to JFK) Highly relevant, and suspect.
(According to DNC) He Was AWOL! (Slander being current demo-speak for "informing the public.").
(According to far right/moderate right/centrist/conservative left/moderate left/media) Irrelevant.

Bill Clinton's behavior during the Vietnam Era:
(According to everyone) Irrelevant. He's been out of office for three years, and can't run again.

John Kerry in Vietnam:
(Actual) Volunteered for Vietnam, served honorably and received numerous citations, tour shortened to four months due to three Purple Hearts, received honorable discharge.
(According to GWB) Irrelevant, but honorable.
(According to JFK) Highly relevant, and admirable.
(According to RNC) Irrelevant.
(According to far right to moderate left/media) Irrelevant, but since you insist on taking about Vietnam, what about...?

John Kerry immediately post-Vietnam:
(Actual) Joined and was extremely active in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, testified before Senate committee accusing GI's of widespread war crimes, is reported (with source) to have participated in VVAW discussion of political assassinations, organized (?) protest during which he threw somebody's somethings onto the White House lawn.
(According to GWB) Irrelevant.
(According to JFK) ???
(According to RNC) Irrelevant.
(According to DNC) Vicious machinations of right wing attack machine.
(According to far right to moderate right) What the hell do you mean, "???," Senator?
(According to centrist to moderate left) Irrelevant.
(According to media) Irrelevant, but since you insist on talking about Vietnam, what about...?

Yes, that does makes perfect sense.

Philip

I find it interesting that there is virtually no support for Sen. Kerry here. A bit of anti-Bush, but that's not the same as pro-Kerry.

It seems to me that Michael's readership is fairly moderate, reasonable, not tending strongly left nor right, but no one seems excited about voting for Sen. Kerry. This does not bode well for the Democratic Party in November.

I cannot find anyone to tell me why I or anyone else should vote for Kerry, (because he is not Bush is not an argument for Kerry.) Even Kerry's campaign website doesn't offer many reasons to vote FOR Kerry.

Phillip,

Don't you love the "Look over here... See what this hand is doing" form of politics?

If Kerry didn't have the SUV/Medal Chucking/insert otherdebatehere then what would there be to talk about? His political views? I don't think that anyone has even a cloudy idea of what they are... let alone a clear view. It's much easier to make it look like a Right Wing attack (and the right Wing pundits are lapping it up). They completely miss the point. If Kerry wants to talk about medals, he can do it on his own time. The next reporter to talk to him would do well to ignore SUV's, Medals and other meaningless drivel and ask questions about his plans to fix the problems in our country today (and yes, to you sheep that think Bush is Christ Incarnate, there are problems).

That's not gonna happen though. In todays world of Star, Weekly World News and National Enquirer, headlines like "Kerry talks about his political plans" don't sell when yur competitor is running "Kerry Admits Owning an SUV!" "What Medals Did Kerry Throw?" etc.

Of course, an article on his political views would probably be very short... maybe they could put it in the obituaries.

'Tosk

>So your theory is that half of your own country is the equivalent of a suicidal cult?

Yes. They believe George Bush is going to save them. It's a messiah thing, with no basis in reality. Turn all the "bin Laden wants Kerry to win" rhetoric on its head and you have "if we re-elect Bush, there will never be another 9/11." And the believers (including otherwise intelligent folks like our humble host) give Bush a pass on all the other ways he's ass-raping the country's economy, environment, and legal system, because he holds their hands and tells them he's gonna save them from the boogieman terrorists. The problem is this: if Bush wins a second term, his totally inept handling of everything else is gonna make this country barely worth saving. We do not live in a one-issue world. It would be a lot easier if we did. But to give Bush a pass because his militarism makes you sleep better at night is to turn your back on everything else he's doing wrong, and that's inexcusable.

PDF,

Nicely stated!

And maybe it's just a total coincidence but all of these bad things have started to happen to Kerry ever since Karen Hughes returned to the scene.

You really haven't a clue what your political opponents believe and why do you?

Yes. They believe George Bush is going to save them.

No, we conservatives are entirely capable of saving ourselves, thanks. We do it every day.

It's a messiah thing, with no basis in reality.

Your statement is the one with no basis in reality. Please cite for me a survey that demonstrates that Bush voters believe he is a Messiah.

Turn all the "bin Laden wants Kerry to win" rhetoric on its head and you have "if we re-elect Bush, there will never be another 9/11."

Regardless of who wins there will be another 9/11. Just a question of where and when. This is about prosecuting and winning a war, not about the ability to do so perfectly.

And the believers (including otherwise intelligent folks like our humble host) give Bush a pass

LOL, you haven't been reading Totten very long, have you?

on all the other ways he's ass-raping the country's economy,

Let's see, 5% GDP growth in the last year, check, low interest rates (and record home ownership) check, low inflation, check, unparalleled productivity, check, employment has turned the corner, check, yeah, it really sucks huh?

environment,

A canard, he's just placed environmental concerns in their proper prioritized place.

and legal system,

I don't like the Patriot Act, but beyond this? Not much here.

because he holds their hands and tells them he's gonna save them from the boogieman terrorists.

No, just that he will resolutely prosecute the war. John Kerry, in contrast, seems to dither over whether he should exhale through his nose or his mouth. Why would anyone believe he could resolutely do anything?

The problem is this: if Bush wins a second term, his totally inept handling of everything else is gonna make this country barely worth saving.

AHHH, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Read up a bit on how the US survived a civil war and a real economic meltdown in the 30's before you jump to ridiculous statements like "barely worth saving." America has shown herself to be very resilient.

We do not live in a one-issue world.

No, only one in which one must assign priorities. All things are not of equal importance.

It would be a lot easier if we did. But to give Bush a pass because his militarism makes you sleep better at night is to turn your back on everything else he's doing wrong, and that's inexcusable.

A wonderful misstatement of the view. My congratulations on you Moore-ian ability to propogandize..

spc67

Thanks for saving me a long response to pdf. You know I have been liberal most my life, but I must say to pdf that mischaracterizing your political opponents is not very intelligent. Don’t excuse yourself by saying the opposition does it because that is beside the point, either win arguments on principle or go down in defeat with valor. Your post shows an aversion to both.

Again I say to my Democratic friends, be the Party of Clinton's policies, not his character and/or principles. That is your hope, you are way more viewed an immature unserious bunch to begin with, don’t go further down that road.

If the Democratic primary process had been conducted honestly, the base would have elected their choice, Howard Dean.

That couldn't be allowed to happen, so they were scared into going with John Kerry, the Electable Candidate.

Elections are intended as mechanisms for citizens to select candidates that best represent their stands and interests on issues.

The candidate should have been Dean. He was the only honest Democrat running. He polled well with the base because he believes the same things they do and wasn't afraid to stand on them.

In my opinion, the DNC isn't a national party organ - it's a tightly focused power management cooperative trying to squeeze the last bits of legitimacy out of a movement that has steadily lost national credibility over the last three decades. On it's face, the thought of running a Massachussets liberal in wartime smacks of desperation.

Bush isn't going to save me. He will make the hard, unpopular calls and see the job through so WE can save ourselves. Sad to see his policy - the freeing of entire nations in pursuit of our own security - condemned as fanciful or simplistic, especially in light of the successes of Japan and germany, post WW2.

Freedom isn't free. If we refuse to confront and defeat those who would take ours, we don't deserve to have it.

Michael, a few questions --
1) Do you agree that it was not throwing the medals at the White House gate that was dishonorable, but rather REMOVING his medals and only throwing his ribbons, so that he could in effect have his cake and eat it too.
2) If so, he would be guilty of opportunism, and so how would comparing his actions with today's "more strident" anti-war activists be relevant?
3) Notwithstanding your statement that you don't care and are just dispensing free advice, you seem more critical about Kerry's actions in this incident than you are with the fact that Bush has the audacity and gall even bring up the issue, considering his own ignoble actions during that era? Do you have any advice for President Bush on this issue?
4) Do you feel that it is worthwhile for our two presidential candidates and the media to spend time trading accusations over which candidate's behavior in the early seventies was more reprehensible? If not, why are you doing your little part to contribute to this ridiculous debate?

"Elections are intended as mechanisms for citizens to select candidates that best represent their stands and interests on issues."

That's interesting - not sure this is true in the case of the President. Kerry actually represents pretty well where we ARE as a country - ambivalent, conflicted, somewhat confused about our proper role and in the world, more sure of what we're against than what we're for.

The thing is, isn't it the President's role to offer a vision of where we can go? preferably together? Bush, in his limited way, at least takes a stab at this. Kerry seems preoccupied with the present and the past.

Ged: "ambivalent, conflicted, confused." Yes but when you get down to the nitty gritty -- educated in Swiss boarding schools, fabulously wealthy, married to a foreign born witch with a capital B -- well, John Forbes Kerry sort of loses his rapport with the Average Joe.

"Do you feel that it is worthwhile for our two presidential candidates and the media to spend time trading accusations over which candidate's behavior in the early seventies was more reprehensible?"

Obviously, this issue is about more than that. I think it boils down to the fact that our country really does want a true uniter, not a divider. It's Bush's apparent abandonment of this strategy that makes him so vulnerable.

To find that unity, we've got some hard work to do to come to some consensus on some thorny issues. That process is not enhanced by those that tell each side what they want to hear (to America was wrong and always is crowd - "I tossed my medals! You were right!" to America was right and is now crowd - "I proudly served! Still got those medals! You were right!")

We know we need more than that. Can Bush provide it? If we were so sure that he could, would we be giving Kerry advice?

Something that Clinton got that current Dems seem to have forgotten: American history is more comedy than tragedy. The vain search for hubris in every American action is getting you nowhere. Hubris is the least of Homer Simpson's problems, but things always seem to work out in the end...

Ged -

Ambivalent? No...not from here. I see a wide spread of political opinion that would be served best by some resolution. That's why I think it important that the candidates generated from primaries best reflect the true interests of their constituencies, rather than be the result of some sort of demographic gamble defined by party elites.

It seems to me that the Democratic leadership is a lot more concerned with losing safely than winning. They seem to be consciously distancing themselves from their most active, vociferous supporters...from the base they have created over thirty years of progressive public education, income redistribution, and social engineering...and that base is a dwindling minority of the electorate.

I see no good end for them. Just my opinion of course. I have a bet with my wife (from February) that Hillary Clinton will be the candidate once all the chips have fallen. Depending on the economy and the war, there may not be another chance for her to run after 2004. In any other universe, the chair of the DNC would have been replaced after 2002. I don't think the Clintons will be allowed to dictate the chair who will replace MacAullife...and they will thus lose the ability to control the party. It will be a good thing for the country, and the Democrats might just benefit, too.

"Notwithstanding your statement that you don't care and are just dispensing free advice, you seem more critical about Kerry's actions in this incident than you are with the fact that Bush has the audacity and gall even bring up the issue, considering his own ignoble actions during that era? Do you have any advice for President Bush on this issue?"

Markus, you got any cites were President Bush has brought up the issue? Kerry's wound on this one seems much like the one that got him his first Purple Heart--i.e., self-inflicted.

A simple answer 20 years ago would have put this matter to rest. All Kerry had to say back then was that yes, he had thrown his medals, but upon further reflection felt proud of his service and so requested replacements. He probably could have gotten away with that explanation even a couple of weeks ago.

BTW, the comparisons to a potential "Sister Souljah" moment are inapt. As somebody else pointed out, it's a little hard to pull it off when you are Sister Souljah yourself.

I don't think they can pull off a switch without Kerry going along with it, and he'd never agree. There was a similar attempt in 1980 by Kennedy to remove Carter as the nominee prior to the convention, and IIRC it was determined then that the delegates were obligated to vote for the candidate they were pledged to on the first ballot. Kerry has easily enough delegates to win that ballot.

I think that both Republicans and Democrats will need to rethink their platforms over the next decade. Democrats are still running on the peacenick platform of the 60's. Most people in my generation (that which was birthed in the late-60's and early-70's) consider them to be frauds. The dems are ex-hippie, now-yuppie oppurtunitsts. The dawning of the Age of Aquarius has become the Dawning of the Cage and Aquarium (see TMBG: "Cage and Aquarium").

so, why do we not (by a landslide) want to vote for Bush, or more specifically, any republican?

The answer is Authoritarianism (did I spell that right?). The Right wing is percieved as Authoritarian and authoritarian ideals are not acceptable to the latest generations. We were weaned on the Hippy Revolution, and though most of those hippies turned into twits, many of us still think that they had the right idea.

The republican party still portrays itself as the Party of my grandfathers ideals. This must change. I loved my Grandfather, but his ideas are not mine, his reality-tunnel is not my reality-tunnel. His Truth is not my truth.

Most of my friends have 1 major problem with todays administration. Bush & Co. act very authoritarian. Their support for nationwide bans on `x type of abortion', their lack of support for the State of California (and other states) to permit medical marijuana by the democratic process, their stance on a nationwide ban on gay marriages, all of this is authoritarian... The Man telling the whole country what is permitted.

If the Republicans want to remain a powerful party, they need to permit states to make more decisions for themselves. If the federal government pulled their noses out of State business, I would probably vote Republican.

I do not think that the unworking poor should simply be on Welfare. It's a damn sick person who can't find a job in front of a computer, or answering a telephone. (Of course, if someone is actively looking for a job, temporary unemployement is a good service.) I despise the democrats and their "Let's take care of everyone too lazy to take care of themselves" ideals.

I do not think that the federal government should be involving itself how a business runs. They should hold businesses to task for their actions (cleaning up environmental messes from Strip mining etc), but not legislate who they hire, what they pay their VP'/CxO's. If a business chooses to pay their CEO $800,000 per year, thats their wasted money.

I do not think that the government should be legislating what a person can and cannot do based on their faith. The Ten Commandments are a decent basis for ideas to live by, and if little Susie wants to pray to Jesus at school, she should. Of course, if little Joey wants to pray to Allah, Discordia or Therion, he should as well.

However, I don't have any faith in the people of America to be open and inclusive by choice. I don't forsee people being open to "All Religion In Schools". I don't see American companies saying "this would make 300,000 profit for you, but we'd fuck about 30 employees so we shouldn't do that..." And I certianly don't think that the bunch of lazy wastes of flesh on Welfare are gonna ever get a job.

So what does that leave for me to care about?

Two things:

1) Safety of the country. The Republicans, at least, have a plan. Not a plan I agree with (I stopped agreeing post-Afganistan, as we decided to invade Iraq... )but a plan. The democrats have nothing.

2) My personal liberties. Yep, its selfish, self-centered, etc... but its true. I don't really care what individuals in this country decide to do, as long as they don't decide what I'm going to do. I think that all Americans should focus on Life, Liberty and The Persuit of Happiness and whatever that means for them. If it doesn't hurt someone else, then no one else has any business in it.

If Republicans began to appreciate State sovrignity... and allowed each state to decide for themselves what their stance is on Guns, Dope, Abortion, Pornography, rating violent video games or movies, etc. etc. etc. I would support them wholeheartedly.

The Democrats simply suck across the board.

Pat -- Markus, you got any cites were President Bush has brought up the issue? Kerry's wound on this one seems much like the one that got him his first Purple Heart--i.e., self-inflicted."

Aw, c'mon you've got to be kidding, Pat. A decision was made to undertake a coordinated campaign to demolish John Kerry character as a man who volunteered for the Vietnam War and served his country heroically. The press, desparate not to be accused of being liberal, went with the story, hook line and sinker. The decision was implemented by Bush surrogates: by Karen Hughes on CNN on Sunday, by Republican members of Congress who spoke about this issue repeatedly on the House floor last week, and by people like veteran Ted Sampley, who was previously the major mouthpiece for Bush's smears against McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary and a man whom Sen. McCain called "one of the most despicable characters I've ever met."

The RNC and the House Congressional Leadership and Karen Hughes and the Ted Sampley and would not be pushing this unless Bush gave his OK. He RUNS AND COORDINATES HIS OWN CAMPAIGN! If you have any doubts about this statement, you are willfully naive. This is how all campaign's work: the surrogates do the dirty work, upon orders.

I have a couple of questions for you Pat.

1. What do you think of this document, posted on John Kerry's website, from February 10, 1968, in which he specifically requests service in Vietnam?:
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/Request_For_Swiftboat_Duty.pdf

2. Do you think Kerry deserved his first Purple Heart?

Ratatosk,

Kudos on your last post. Vey well said. It seems like perhaps a cross party coalition could be built around prosecuting the war with resolve, and a return to real Federalism as a guiding principal domestically.

Or even "very" well said. Sheesh.

One more thing for Pat, and anyone else who would diminish Kerry's war record for partisan purposes:

from New Republic's CAMPAIGN JOURNAL
Rope-a-Dope
by Ryan Lizza April 23, 2004

When John Kerry was a swift-boat commander in Vietnam, his job was to steer his small, noisy vessel down the Mekong Delta in an attempt to draw enemy fire. As The Boston Globe explained in its excellent series about the candidate last June, "Kerry's mission was to wait until hidden Vietcong guerrillas started shooting, then order his men to return fire." Not surprisingly, swift-boat crewmembers were frequently shot. The commander of these operations once estimated that his men had a 75 percent chance of being killed or wounded. Kerry himself was injured three times....

Thanks to TmjUtah and Samuel, I just came up with a new hypothesis: only right-wing people think Hillary has designs on the White House in 2004, and the stronger a person's belief, the stronger that person's right-wingedness.

Ratastok

However, I don't have any faith in the people of America to be open and inclusive by choice...

Agreed, and hence the need for laws. Laws which include everything but exclude nothing =no laws. So we've all got to adhere to some rules we don't personally agree with. Our grandfathers understood this; today, we don't seem to get it.

I also agree that more decision making should be left with the states, but until our judges quit legislating from the bench and overturning decisions made at the ballot box, the outcry for federal rulings and constitutional amendments isn't likely to cease

Ratastok -- With the exception of the right to carry assault weapons, Democrats are much better than Republicans on issues of personal liberties, such as abortion, medical marijuana (not all, but some dems), gay rights, etc.

I agree that we have not done a good job articulating compelling alternatives to Bush with security and foreign policy.

Welfare is the one issue that Republican's love to demagogue the most. In fact, the Aid for Dependent Children program was reformed eight years ago. Its just for women and children, the overall cost to the federal government is very small, and after the 1996 reform bill signed by Clinton there are strict time limits and work requirements, which I and most Democrats strongly support.

I agree that the federal government should not tell people who to hire, however, I think the fact that the 1964 Civil Rights Bill overruled many state laws in order to make it illegal to discriminate in hiring on the basis of race was a good thing. Don't you?

JRW -- judges "legislate from the bench" in order to prevent unpopular groups of people -- blacks and gays, for instance -- from having their rights infringed upon by majorities. Its the difference between liberal democracy (liberal in the old-fashioned sense of the word) and majority rule.

SPC67: It would be a dream come true.

JRW: No, it is not OK to implement bad laws. The federal government needs to ensure Life, Liberty and The Persuit of Happiness, Civil Rights fall under all three. That does not mean its ok to pass restrictive legislation on the masses. If a company discriminates against a minority group, then that company should be brought to court for their impeding the Liberty and Persuit of Happiness of a minority. We don't need to legislate society.

Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness may be recoined as:

"Like what you like, Enjoy what you enjoy, and don't give each other crap."

Words to live by... and ones that I wish some party would figure out.

Oh, and I forgot to say that a lot of us Vietnam vets who normally vote democrat are pissed off at Kerry and how he turned against us.
Did he weasel out of his tour, serving only 4 months of a 12 month tour? Who knows? Only Kerry knows that, and getting a straight answer out of him seems impossible.

Markus -- you didn't answer Pat's question, you simply stumbled aimlessly from one unsupported assertion to another, and then concluded by blowing smoke with change-of-subject questions to cover your retreat.

Kinda like your boy Kerry did on GMA yesterday. As if having his shorts pulled down around his ankles and his shoestrings tied together by Charlie Gibson wasn't bad enough, as if resurrecting the who-did-what-during-Vietnam that led to his on-air pratfall wasn't worse still, he completes the hat-trick with his off-camera aside about ABC News' political allegiances.

One would think with all that time spent in Swiss Boarding Schools and at Yale he'd remember that his mike was still on.

I mean, who's Charlie Gibson s'posed to believe, John F*cking Kerry or his own lying eyes?

Thank you, Terry McAuliffe, Clinton Waterboy and Author of the '02 Midterm Debacle, for resurrecting Vietnam as a campaign issue in the first place. Besides poisoning public discourse and ripping the scabs off of thiry-year-old wounds, it's working out about as well as did the campaign to unseat Jeb Bush (crushed McBride by 15 pts.), innit?

Gawd, but you Demos never learn. Until you do, you're really not fit for national office, nor to lead this country during a time of mortal threats to our security. Until you do, stay out from underfoot so the Adults can do their jobs.

--furious

Ratastok- I didn't say bad laws were OK, did I? If you feel that any law you disagree with is a bad law, then, OK, you got me there. I may think a 55mph speed limit infringes on my pursuit of happiness, because I can exercise greater freedom-of-velocity without hurting others, but that doesn't make traffic laws "bad"; they are quite necessary. Social laws are a tad more thorny, but some lines have to be drawn, or pretty soon you're having to agree that we can't impose our opinions on Islamic extremists just because we disagree with them.

Markus--good point about judicial activism, but I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far towards "individual rights" when the most important (pre-9/11) quality of a presidential candidate is who they would or wouldn't name to the Bench. And come on, how does stopping a school district from teaching Intelligent Design alongside Darwinism or demanding the removal of a rock with 10 Jewish laws inscribed on it from a courthouse lawn protect critical minority rights? We don't need the feds telling this stuff.

furious -- I answered Pat's question about whether or not Bush had ever brought up the issue of Kerry's war record by stating that President Bush is responsible for the statements of his surrogates, particularly top level ones such as Karen Hughes and members of the House of Representatives. You want to dispute that Karen Hughes would not have brought this issue up on CNN Newsmaker Sunday without Bush's OK?

Unsupported? Here read EJ Dionne's column "Stooping Low to Smear Kerry" in the Washington Post Today. (registration may be necessary) I got most of what I wrote from there. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44999-2004Apr26.html

Answer me "furious": If Bush had the same record in Vietnam as Kerry did, and a Bill Clinton or some other draft dodger was running against him, wouldn't you think it was outragous if Clinton or a surrogate questioned whether Bush was truly heroic in the war, whether he deserved a Purple Heart, why he left his final tour early,etc. YOU WOULD BE OUTRAGED AND RIGHTFULLY SO. So then what makes Bush any better for bringing this up now?

What's your point about Swiss Boarding Schools and Yale? Bush went to Phillips Andover and Yale.

You spout nonsense.

Anybody notice that Kerry said he didn't throw his medals and that he didn't have even have them because they were at home? Well wasn't he wearing at least the Silver Star THE DAY BEFORE during his famous testimony in front of the Senate in D.C.? Also why do the Bronze star and Silver star citations (pg. 2) found at JFK's website have signature of Sec. of Navy John Lehman? Wasn't he Sect of Navy for Reagan in the 80s? Same John Lehman on 9/11 commission.

OT: Jesus Mike, you got a new site. Get rid of your goatee for God's sake. It's so nineties.

Markus, it is well-established that when Kerry volunteered for swift boat duty, they were doing coastal patrol, and were not very hazardous. Kerry himself commented on this as pointed out in an exhaustive series in the Boston Globe (from the second part of the series):

Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

As for the Purple Heart, I'll leave it to his commanding officer:

"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm." Hibbard said he couldn't be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in questionand that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.

But Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Hibbard said, he dropped the matter. "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it," Hibbard said. "I finally said, `OK, if that's what happened . . . do whatever you want.' After that, I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."

The point about the danger on the swift boats is legitimate. Of course, a 75% change of being killed or wounded is over the course of a full year; Kerry's getting wounded three times in the course of four months made him very (un?)lucky indeed. The odds of that happening even given the 75% annual casualty rate are infinitesimal.

I would just like to point out the fact that damn near every single suggestion from everyone on which way the parties ought to go seems to suggest that they ought to go in a libertarian direction...

Democrats becoming less anti-business and more oriented towards "Clinton's policies", as Samuel wisely puts it.

Republicans becoming more tolerant and accepting of personal morality and modern social norms (on issues like Abortion and Gay Rights). In other words, telling the Religious Right to go to hell.

Can there be any real doubt at this point as to the small-l libertarian future of politics in America? As a libertarian-leaning liberal, I'm all for it. This is most definitely the direction we're headed. The faster the Republicans get out of policy formulation stuck in the 1950s and Democrats the 1960s, the better off we'll all be.

I think Clinton was probably the closest either party has come to truly modernizing itself to small-l libertarian realities. But even he was pretty far off. Bring on the South Park Republicans!!!

Sometimes I'm too subtle.

Try it this way:

There's no national party of Democrats. It was dead as a national force when Bill Clinton decided he had to run in 1992, before the favorable inertia provided by media, pop culture, the speedbump recession, and conservative dissatisfaction with Bush's tax agreement with the Dem leadership evaporated. The big wars were won. The economy was fundamentally strong after looking past the doom tolls of the media machine..

He ran on a remarkably similar modus to what Kerry is left with - anybody but Bush. Media pushed the speed bump recession in '91 as the second coming of the great depression and played Bush's "read my lips" speech every half hour for the entire campaign without ever bothering to note that the tax increase was proposed by Mitchell and Foley with the assurance that congress would cut spending commensurately...for the good of the country.

Brutus was not as elegant when he invited Caeser to lunch down to the senate.

Even with a third party hammer, Clinton won on a plurality, and did even less well on reelection against a soft candidate. That's not the statistical profile of a strong national following - that's an indicator of a master politician able to function in an environment of electoral apathy.

I'm not a connected political operative. I've never been registered as a Republican until this year...as of a month ago. Samuel, on the other hand, was a lifelong Dem and has been directly involved in political activism at the top of that party. I'm interested to see his reply.

What I see is a big 'ol boatload of squabbling factions from tiedyed vegans to disgruntled sixties kids to Chomskyites to activists of almost endless variety glomming onto a Donkey decal in hope of advancing personal agendas with little or no consideration for actually dealing with national issues outside their own interests...all herded by a concentrated band of moribund incumbent timeservers and professional operatives who use what is left of the party for their own purposes.

There are serious people who believe in more government involvement in social issues than I do...good liberal citizens...but they don't have a party they can participate in anymore. Folks like Zell Miller. His book was a major catalyst in my conclusion that the party is something less than a party these days.

I just look at who controls the money - and where that money comes from. The Left, the party of the Working Man, cannot compete with small-donor numbers racked up by the RNC. After getting CFR (like they wanted), the Left ends up being dependent on organizations like unions and lawyers and 527's to fund itself.

And the media no longer defines the poltical battlefield.

2004 is an important election. The war must be effectively prosecuted. The economy, while growing, is still weak on job growth but not nearly as weak as has been proposed. The long-favored (now last) avenue of legislative action of the Left, the courts, will be affected for decades by the appointments made in the next administration.

This is a serious election. As the days go by, from where I stand it becomes clear that Kerry is not all that serious a candidate. The only reason that Hillary Clinton hijacked a senate seat was to position for the White House. The original timeline was to run a full term, rack up a kept promise NOT to run in 2004 and then hit the trail in 2006 or 2007 as an incumbent senator with some sort of record to pad her joint control of the DNC...and to let her national negatives recede, hopefully.

A peacetime election in 2008 would have beem a pretty fair shot for her, I think. Eight years to plan and organize, and more than enough time for the media to REALLY want to see a change.

Best laid plans and all that. War is truly hell, but especially for those who would presume to lead but cannot bring themselves to accept the responsibility that is inseperable from authority. They have to offer more than "anybody but Bush"...and be believable.

No bench. No depth. No coherent message.

No winners.

PS...

And may Arlen Spector win the Republican Primary tonight out in Pennsylvania. If I lived there, I'd be volunteering for his campaign.

Pat -- if George Bush had done what John Kerry did in Vietnam, and Bill Clinton or Al Gore or some surrogate in the 2000 election decided to attack him for it by bringing up the same things you and the Republicans are right now, wouldn't you think that was outrageous?

Grant -- my only problem with libertarianism is it doesn't have any interest in addressing the moral dilemmas and social problems posed by excessive, widening inequality. (I am not for a huge western european style welfare state, but I'm also concerned about huge cutbacks in benefits due to declining birth rates, etc.) This will particularly be a problem in just a few decades, when medicine advances to the point where it is possible to increase life expectency by twenty or thirty years through genetic engineering and other medical miracles, but only some of the population will realistically be able to afford this.

I do agree, however, in political terms, that if the Republican Party decided to become the party of Giuliani and Gov. Arnold rather than the party of the Bible Belt, they would be just about invincible in the short term.

TmjUtah -- your portrayal of the Dems as a moribund force would seem to be belied by the fact that we are so evenly divided in this country right now between the "blues" and the "reds" as they are popularly known. If we are as lame as you say we are, how come we aren't getting beaten any worse? If I were a Republican, I'd be trying to figure out why year after year both parties can't seem to get a strong majority in Presidential elections or in Congress.

MARKUS...

In regard to your concerns of inequality, note that I did refer to myself as a "libertarian-leaning LIBERAL". I'm not a big fan of the European-style welfare state, either, but I do tend to think a small-to-medium-sized welfare state is necessary: The type of welfare state envisioned by the New Democrats really, with "Conservative Means to Liberal Ends".

If both parties today embraced a fair greater amount of small-l libertarianism, I'd still favor the Dems on domestic issues. Clinton was a fiscal moderate who favored balanced budgets over tax cuts, not a wreckless fiscal conservative. The same can be said of myself.

I was simply trying to get at the fact that my generation predominately divides into 2 groups: libertarian-leaning liberals and libertarian-leaning conservatives. I was merely suggesting that, perhaps, the parties ought to be moving in our direction sometime soon.

Markus -

"Inequality" of what? Outcome?

Read the manual. It says "life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness".

There are no statute guarantees of individual success, Markus. What we call poverty in America is regarded as high living across about seventy percent of the world. And if our 'inequality' is such a damning reality, why are people still killing themselves to get here?

Maybe it's because our 'inequality' has more to do with some people not working as hard as others instead of lack of opportunity?

This is where the line ".... more serious people who believe in more government involvement in social issues than I do...good liberal citizens..." from above comes into play.

We disagree in our analysis of what factors are driving success, or the lack of it, in this society. So be it.

As far as being a fifty/fifty nation, I think that discussion will be best left to November 5, 2004. I think the issue will be much, much clearer at that time.

Hey! I just got my "Best of the Web" e-mail newsletter and Michael Totten's advice to Kerry was quoted in one of his excerpts! Way to go, Michael!You're really getting famous!

TnjUtah -- I'm not sure where you are coming from. Yes, I am concerned about excessive inequality of outcome. Note the key modifier "excessive." While I can have a conversation with people who care LESS than me about this issue, or who question whether taxing the wealthy is the best way to address it. I'm not interested in debates with Ayn Rand disciples or other riffraff about whether caring about equality of outcome AT ALL is always wrong, or some such claptrap.

Inequality is caused by lots of things. Some people work harder and have better attitudes, some people are more intelligent, some people inherit money and grow up in more affluent and otherwise better environments, some people are luckier...its a combination of free will and determinism and those who would deny either are just being simpleminded.

On the other the chances of getting killed in Vietnam if you avoided it by using your daddy's connections were none. Two men. One commented that he thought about blowing his ear drums out to avoid Vietnam, one wears the wounds and medals of a warrior. Who do you want for a leader. Easy. I take the warrior, every time.

Ratatosk -

Oh no. I'm really under the weather here, or I would have caught this sooner:

"However, I don't have any faith in the people of America to be open and inclusive by choice."

Excuse me?

I remember back in the day when I was a world traveller on Uncle Sam's ticket. I went to exotic places all over the world and mixed with foreign people on their own turf. All colors, all creeds, every continent but South America (south of Panama) and Antarctica.

We got the 'ambassadors in Dress Blues' brief before every port call. We got told about the diversity of Singapore, the gestures innocent in America that could get your hand cut off in India, the proper etiquitte for attracting a waiter in Tokyo.

Any place I ever went I could spend dollars. And the only country I ever visited where I didn't meet somebody who had a relative already in the states or who was interested in coming themselves was Somalia, 1985 - but the Sov sailors we ran into at the same time were awful interested in the idea.

You don't have any faith in our ability to be inclusive? We fought a four year civil war in large part over adjusting our society to reflect the ideals embodied in our constitution. This, at a time when most Western imperial powers were bang on against slave trade but saw no problem in assigning subhuman status to indigenous peoples in the colonies (wogs, blackfellas). We have arrived at today's blendamatic U.S. society precisely because of our inclusiveness.

Now that doesn't mean we hold people in esteem for being Irish or Nigerian or Polish or Mayflower WASP or Hispanic. It means we deal with people as free citizens due the respect we feel we are due. The practice of managing groups of people defined by skin or ethnicity really has no value beyond politics...maybe entertainment, but much, much less so. In the marketplace and the community PEOPLE make things happen, one interaction at a time.

That's how I was raised. That's how my kids are being raised. Just what is it that makes the concept of a unique and wonderful AMERICAN culture, independent of skin or ethnicity, so repugnant to the folks that would like to be in charge....? American citizens live that template every day in every state. It's politicoes and activists who seek to benefit from divisiveness that make the issue an issue. More wasted classroom space and TV minutes... You really need to read some D'nish D'souza (sp?) - start with "What's So Great About America?"

Our entire system of government is based on the choices of the franchised citizenry electing the representatives whose duty it is to protect and defend the rights of the citizens.

And you don't trust THEM to be inclusive enough? After two hundred - plus years without a total failure of government, across the industrial revolution, colonialism, three world wars, and the dawn of the information age, you don't TRUST the electorate to get it right?

Who, then, do you place enough trust in to do what is right? And what limits, if any, do you entertain on their power?

Government is not the origin of wealth, success, or favor...it is merely the instrument by which such things can be taken from one man and given to another. Do not look for government to change people from being what people are - individuals, with choices to be made and consequences or rewards to deal with.

Call me a wingnut. I would rather see the very bottom of our society a small percentage of people that know they might make it if they try rather than a huge majority kept in institutional misery with no hope of ever making it on their own.

Sorry for the rant. Too bed...hopefully to knit this ravelled freakin' wardrobe...

Clinton so easily got away with all this stuff...

Call it the post-Cold War who cares? pass. Some of were amazed that Clinton could flip, dance, lie, flop, have "no center," and still be taken seriously by so many. Those days may well be gone. A post world-watching-the-World-Trade-Center-buildings-crumble might just cause America to take a pass on that Clinton "pass" thing.

I could be wrong, though. :)

Markus offers:

"TnjUtah -- I'm not sure where you are coming from."

The Democratic conundrum in nearly pure form.

When I admitted in a Sociology class last week (I'm a graduate student - went back to school after ten years of work) that I'm a libertarian, my otherwise intelligent professor had this look on his face like he was seeing a ghost.

"You mean libertarians aren't just a fiction perpetrated by the VRWC to justify their greedy schemes?" he as much as said before he caught himself.

Markus, the Dem's are the party of personal liberty in everything except their policies. You lost the true progressives, those who actually believe in progress, long ago...

There is always the potential to win us back - indeed, to put together a majority that would make an election worth winning you would have to - but you'd better look in the mirror at what your own party has become if you plan on doing that.

Listening to Grant and actually responding to TimJ (instead of reverting to your talking point non-sequiturs) would be a good start.

Tosk, respect begets respect. The liberal order you seek requires a foundation of mutual faith in one another supported by the rule of law but not relying exclusively upon it. "Trust, but verify" as the man said.

"Who do you want for a leader. Easy. I take the warrior, every time."

did you vote for dole? be honest.

More Kerry lies:

In March, Kerry told a Miami TV reporter that he had voted for Helms-Burton, the 1996 legislation that further tightened the U.S. embargo on Cuba. In fact, he had voted against it.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2099513/

With the exception of the right to carry assault weapons, Democrats are much better than Republicans on issues of personal liberties

That is simply false. On the issues of free speech (speech codes), religious freedom (anti-Christian bigotry), property rights (eminent domain, tax code, government regulation), equality before the law (affirmative discrimination), the Republicans are light years ahead of the Democrats on personal liberties. Republicans (80+%)even voted for the 1964 Civil Rights act in greater numbers than the Democrats (60+%).

It is only in the liberties of decadance that the Democrats are stronger than the Republicans.

Ged of Earthsea, you're totally right. More people ought to be listening to me. I know everything there is to know, afterall. ;)

Your tale about Sociology cracked me up, by the way. Marxists have pretty much taken over all the sociology departments in academia, the same as libertarians have come to dominate academic economics. You're in the wrong field, my friend.

PS...

Oh, and hey, have the NeoCons overrun the poli-sci department at whatever school you're at? Where I go, it's just liberals as usual and they haven't made a dent but I keep hearing tales of a NeoCon takeover at other Universities. Have the Straussians infiltrated in your neck of the woods?

Markus says:

"Yes, I am concerned about excessive inequality of outcome."

But does it therefore follow that the government is the appropriate instituition to combat this?

We all like for the World Series to come down to the last out of the seventh game. Should the umpires therefore change how they call the game to produce this outcome?

"You're in the wrong field, my friend."

lol. If only you knew the field I actually am in...

I can only say that there is hope on the horizon for your fellow travelers, especially Totten, even in what he might perceive to be the belly of the beast itself.

"Marxists have pretty much taken over all the sociology departments in academia"

There's as much variation within these "Marxists" as in any other group we like to lump together. This particular professor is actually a pretty good guy, he's just been trapped in New York Times land for a couple decades. I think I actually detected a note of long-forgotten hope in his voice during the exchange I related above.

That class turned out to be a lively one - the other students were excited to hear about these heretical libertarian ideas, especially a couple very bright African-Americans.

= )

Markus raised an insteresting question that I can't find now, but it went something like this:

If the Dems are in such bad shape, then why is the country so evenly divided?

Curious for ideas here on that one.

"Have the Straussians infiltrated in your neck of the woods?"

I'm actually in a whole different sort of forest - I doubt anyone's even heard of Strauss, but there is a new openness to ideas along his line. It is a gentle openness, however, that seeks to avoid denigrating the very real contributions made by our other traditions, including the liberal and radical.

Ged -- I believe I responded to TmjUtah and did not use any nonsequitors. Can you dispute this?

HA -- I do not support "Speech codes" nor does any other Democrat that I personaly know...once again you confuse moderates and liberals with the far left unelected individuals and groups such as college presidents, tenured faculty, assorted motley groups of unwashed young people, obnoxious single-issue advocacy groups exercising their 1st amendment right to say dumb things, etc.

Invoking eminent domain is a bipartisan enterprise at the federal level, and a nonpartisan one at the state and local levels (usually pushed by state highway authorities and local corporate and civic leaders). The effort to pass zoning, environmental restrictions and other forms of "government regulation" in order to prevent you from doing things on your property that lower MY QUALITY OF LIFE and in many cases MY PROPERTY VALUES as well is also a nonpartisan or bipartisan enterprise.

I'm not sure what you mean by anti-Christian bigotry. You mean the recent House resolution affirming that we are a nation under God, which 97% of House Democrats supported? Or courthouse Nativity scenes, perhaps? As a nonreligious Jew, I never really cared about them, but I know others who did feel uncomfortable or excluded, and still do.

I'll concede that affirmative action means that only 9% of white applicants get accepted to Harvard law school instead of 9.25%...it's a tough question, and I'm with Sandra Day O'Conner on the issue: I support it provisionally and with reservations. So do many other Democrats (and Republicans).

The fact that a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for Civil Rights Act is an irrelevant canard. The relevant factor was that the vote was on geographic lines: almost all southerners (all Democrats, for historical reasons) voted against it, almost all non-southerners regardless of party voted for it. The other relevant fact is that beginning in that year, the Democrats, led by President Johnson, made a concious decision to embrace policies that would drive anti-civil rights Southern Democrats out of the party, and the Republicans made a concious decision to welcome them. It was akin to what it would be like today if the Republicans made a concious decision to tell the religious right to take a hike, while the Democrats decided they were in fact pro-life.

In fact, the local level Republican leadership in many southern counties in 1967 or 1968 was often the same people who led the local Democratic party a few years earlier.

I'm not gonna say right or wrong, but I would like to make an observation:

Here and over at Roger Simon's blog, I keep hearing the death knell of the Democratic Party. This is usually surrounded by words like "obvious", "plainly see" and other such bits of vocabulary.

Last night I went to a coffee shop, the RL version of a blog if I've seen one. This particular coffee shop is generally more Democrat and Liberal... there I heard deep and meaningful discussions about how this was the last hurrah of the neo-cons and Bush's defeat would herald the end of the Republican party as it is today.

Now, both sides quoted liberally from polls, quotes from this paper or that web log... but at the end of the day the arguments sounded nearly the same, with just the POV changed.

The Democrats I heard were confident that their party was stronger, more prepared etc, just as many Republicans have stated here and elsewhere.

I wonder if both aren't exaggarations, is it possible that each side is looking at the data and seeing only what they want to see?

I don't know the answers, I don't have a crystal ball (mine broke when I was bowling), and its not something I'm gonna argue, for or against... just something I found interesting.

Ratatosk

Markus,

Thank you for your generally well-reasoned, thoughtful answers. As for non-sequiturs, Tnj says this:

"There are no statute guarantees of individual success, Markus. What we call poverty in America is regarded as high living across about seventy percent of the world. And if our 'inequality' is such a damning reality, why are people still killing themselves to get here?"

To which you respond:

"TnjUtah -- I'm not sure where you are coming from. Yes, I am concerned about excessive inequality of outcome. Note the key modifier "excessive." While I can have a conversation with people who care LESS than me about this issue, or who question whether taxing the wealthy is the best way to address it. I'm not interested in debates with Ayn Rand disciples or other riffraff about whether caring about equality of outcome AT ALL is always wrong, or some such claptrap."

All I'm saying is that you can choose to file Tnj into your own personal "Ayn Rand claptrap" file, but you do so to your own detriment. You need him for your majority. You need to speak to his concerns and not merely defend your own.

"once again you confuse moderates and liberals with the far left unelected individuals and groups such as college presidents, tenured faculty, assorted motley groups of unwashed young people, obnoxious single-issue advocacy groups exercising their 1st amendment right to say dumb things, etc."

This gets back to the "policing your own" issue I raised before. They have the right to speak; you don't have the obligation to listen, but your party acts as if it does.

"The other relevant fact is that beginning in that year, the Democrats, led by President Johnson, made a concious decision to embrace policies that would drive anti-civil rights Southern Democrats out of the party, and the Republicans made a concious decision to welcome them."

This is a canard that alienates many Southern moderate progressives. See:

http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2004/alexander.html

If a far-right "think" tank says it's true, it must be so, especially if it makes Republicans look good!

It may be to the "right" (though I suspect we have our labels backward, if actual results matter), but for it to seem "far" one must oneself be far enough left to be destined to minority status. If that's where you wish to be... enjoy!

I appreciate your reasonable response, Mr. Earthsea.

I was trying to express that I'm interested in debating whether inequality is a serious problem in our country, or whether the cures proposed for it are ineffective or worse than the disease itself, but I'm not interested in an unresolvable debate over whether ineqality of outcome in principle can ever be a matter of concern, which is what Randians usually want to debate, and which is where I thought he might be going based on the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" sentiments he expressed elsewhere.

My response wasn't a nonsequitur (illogical conclusion), but it was presumptive, offtopic and you are also correct that I didn't address his point about the US poor relative to poverty elsewhere. I'll think about that one and try to respond when I have some time later today.

Briefly, Henry Ford was right: enough workers need to get paid enough to be able to afford Model T's. If that's not happening, or its not happening without massive borrowing, I think we have a problem.

"With the exception of the right to carry assault weapons, Democrats are much better than Republicans on issues of personal liberties."

You Democrats are confusing "Libertines" with "Liberties".

For all the quacking about John Ashcroft being the Second Coming of Savoronola, the unofficial US Attorney General American Citizen Body Count still stands at:

Janet Reno: 86, including nineteen children.
John Ashcroft: Zero.

This doesn't include the style points awarded Ms. Reno for the use of flame-throwing tanks and armed helicopters.

--furious

Furious --
Regarding Janet Reno - don't forget to mention the black helicopters.

Regarding Ashcroft - Dick Armey and Bob Barr disagree with you so much about him and his Patriot Act that they've become consultants for the ACLU.

"You Democrats are confusing 'Libertines' with 'Liberties'".

Regarding the Libertines, I do recommend their first album. Here's Robert Christgau's review:Up the Bracket [Rough Trade, 2003] Forget all the well-meaning comparisons to good bands present and especially past. Every guitar-based four-piece with enough sidelong flair and I-don't-care gets those nowadays, and these Londoners have more talent and panache than most if not all of them. They're plenty songful if you give them half a chance, which is hard because they conceal such a bewildering wealth of compositional tactics within a fast, loose, lyrical, vulnerable sound that's their own even if they've never given it a moment's thought...
Grade: A

Now please answer the question I asked you previously:
If Bush had the same record in Vietnam as Kerry did, and a Bill Clinton or some other draft dodger was running against him, wouldn't you think it was outragous if Clinton or a surrogate questioned whether Bush was truly heroic in the war, whether he deserved a Purple Heart, why he left his final tour early,etc.? What then gives Bush, Cheney or any other Republican draft dodger the right to bring this up now?

Are you saying Claremont isn't far-right, but instead on the left? Did we suddenly get shifted to dimention X, and no one told me?

Markus...

So, what you're saying is that E.J. Dionne was away from his desk when Terry McAuliffe dragged the corpse of Vietnam in to the campaign to begin with, and while John Kerry was hiding behind poor, pitiful Max Cleland's wheelchair on the primary trail?

But when decorated Republican veterans respond -- RESPOND -- on their candidate's behalf, Mr. Dionne's outrage meter suddenly spikes?

I believe the technical term is "selective memory". I believe the other technical term is "glass jaw". Even worse, not only can John Kerry not TAKE a punch, but he can't even throw the FIRST one properly. I don't even know the technical term for that.

Markus, I'd suggest, seeing as how the whole Vietnam-biography "thingee" has boomeranged on you lot like three-day-old Sushi (I mean, did you see Botox-boy thrashing in the net on Good Morning America? It was awful!), that A>you need to get your head out of E.J. Dionne's rectum, and B>you're really better off beating the Enron/Halliburton dead horse...

...but then I'd be interrupting an opponent as they're forming a circular firing squad. It's just too funny to watch. And with Terry McAuliffe still at helm of the DNC, we haven't seen last of the Kerry cluster-f*cks, have we?

Heh-heh, you're dismissed.

--furious

Markus Rose

Now Markus this is what I call extreme prejudice and bigotry…

The fact that a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for Civil Rights Act is an irrelevant canard. The relevant factor was that the vote was on geographic lines: almost all southerners (all Democrats, for historical reasons) voted against it, almost all non-southerners regardless of party voted for it.

Is it lost on you Markus that the South has become less racist the more Republican it has become? You are a walking example of prejudiced projecting on to others. This is a classical “my shit left on your yard equals your shit” mindset. Markus, don’t try to offload the Democratic KKK pile of shit past on to the Party of Lincoln! The Republicans have done a beautiful job cleaning up the Democrats messes. You can thank the Republicans for the cleanup of this region as well. Or are they still rednecks, racists and bigots, well Markus?

OFFENSIVE! Thank God I am over what obviously still ails you!

This doesn't include the style points awarded Ms. Reno for the use of flame-throwing tanks

Right-wing fabrication taken as fact. The tanks did not have flamethrowers - this was a debunked falsehood first presented by Acting Adjunct General" of the "Unorganized Militia of the United States," Linda Thompson.

Is the rest of your post more or less accurate than this far-right wing militia spawned myth?

Eighty-six to ZIP, Markus. Civil rights don't mean much to people massacred by their own government.

And if Bush had the same record as Kerry in Vietnam, he'd be a fool to drag events from thirty years ago -- events on which he can't even tell the same story from one TV appearance to the next -- into the campaign as some kind of biographical innoculation against his voting record in the Senate. He'd be even more of a fool using for using a tool like Terry McAuliffe as his mouthpiece.

Guess that means Kerry's a fool. His mouth is writing checks his *ss can't cash. And you people call Bush a moron. Heh.

--furious

I think the thing is that Democrats used to be notably superior on civil liberties - in the fifties and sixties, specifically. I now think that this was an accident of history, that the Democratic Party saw that a civil liberties focus benefited it on its issues in the era of McCarthy and Vietnam. That focus started dissipating in the seventies and early eighties, when Democrats saw that the opposite position now benefited its issues - cracking down on abortion protests, for example, or racial speech codes. But when I was growing up it seemed like a law of nature that the Democratic Party was the party of civil liberties.

I suspect a lot of people, like me, had their political sensibilities formed in a time when that looked to be the case. From this perspective, when Republicans violate civil liberties it's one more confirmation that they're the party of authoritarianism, but when Democrats do it, it's just some sort of horrible abberation and it doesn't really count. Friends of mine during the Clinton era didn't like that administration's violations of civil liberties, but they didn't put them together into a pattern. Each incident stood alone, and none was as alarming to them as it would have been coming from Republicans.

Videotape doesn't lie, Hipo. The tanks crashed in, and the flames followed them as they backed out. Other video shows gunfire coming from the helicopters circling the compound.

I'd recommend "Waco - The Rules of Engagement" as leisure-time viewing for you, before you mess yourself further in front of everyone.

And I notice you didn't dispute the body count, or that it was a massacre. See, you're learning already.

--furious

It is only in the liberties of decadance that the Democrats are stronger than the Republicans.

Those who sell, buy and use tobacco would be interested to hear this.

Jaed,

Nice comment.

I agree, the Democratic party (as a whole, not as individuals) are becoming more Authoritarian and the republicans are still somewhat authoritarian, usually when it involves somthing whihc they consider 'degenerate'. Of course, 'degenerate' is an opinion based on their moral beliefs, which for (many but not all) republicans is remarkably similar to the current views of mainstream Christianity.

This is the key problem I have with the republican party, the Democratic party, or any party that would legislate at a Federal level anything that does not impact the Life, Liberty and Persuit of Happiness of others. I would love to see any potential law that doesn't meet that basic requirement to be a decision by the people of each state.

Of course, someone will respond with bs about "I want to kill someone, so it should be my choice, right?" which of course falls under L,L,PoH... it doesn't matter though, they'll still say it and think they scored a point.

Sigh

"Are you saying Claremont isn't far-right, but instead on the left? Did we suddenly get shifted to dimention X, and no one told me?"

Compare Claremont to our friend furious. You expect me to lump them into the same category?

Here's my best guess:

We're a pretty experimental culture - we like to try things out to see how they fly. Our left-wing/progressive citizens last century got the bright idea that consolidating power into one place, the central government, would be just the ticket for social justice and progress, a sort of one-stop-shopping for all our social needs, if you will.

The results were mixed, at best. Those not so hot on the idea of progress in the first place, including those formerly labeled right-wing, have come to defend the policies that grew out of this movement, because that's their job, to defend the status quo. They've been joined there by those who've become more attached to the policies than the spirit that created them.

An 80-year-old Deal is a lot of things, but it certainly can no longer be called "New". True progressives can do better.

Ged - just to be clear - because Claremont isn't foaming-at-the-mouth stupid, they aren't far-right?

Claremont is a far-right "think" tank. Furious is a far-right militia supporter. Both are far-right. Neither is correct.

Markus, you say:

"I'll concede that affirmative action means that only 9% of white applicants get accepted to Harvard law school instead of 9.25%...it's a tough question, and I'm with Sandra Day O'Conner on the issue: I support it provisionally and with reservations. So do many other Democrats (and Republicans)."

And I'll concede that segregation means that 0.00% of negroes get into the University of Mississippi instead of 0.00001%. I'm sure a bright young man like Mr. Meredith can find a nice school for coloreds, like him... It's a tough question, and I'm with the illustrious Mr. Douglas on the issue: I support it provisionally and with reservations. So do many other Republicans (and Democrats).

NOT.

We're talking bedrock, core principles here. Tread more lightly, please.

Hipocrite (from the Greek hypo-, meaning "under" and kritas, meaning "to judge"; perhaps explaining your inclination toward prejudice),

"Claremont is a far-right "think" tank."

So you're admitting you find no other grounds upon which to challenge its assertions? If furious claimed that 2+2=4, would you dismiss that as well?

Sure, you allege that the piece states that "This is a canard that alienates many Southern moderate progressives."

The Claremont institute does not have the best interests of Southern moderate progressives or Democrats at heart. If they say Democrats need to stop doing something, and that something dosen't lead to Democrats choosing policies that Claremont agrees with (and discarding a "canard" is not a policy), then their motivation is to hurt Southern moderates, progressives and Democrats.

It's like George Steinbrenner telling the Red Sox that Pedro Martinez is a bad pitcher, and they should trade him away for a draft pick.

Now, beyond the motivations, the article is just plain wrong. The three steps in the first paragraph are how Republicans wished their party evolved - the order, however, is wrong.

'The GOP executed on a racist 'Southern Strategy,' in the 196-70's. The Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern racists through this Strategy. Southern racists are white. The GOP continues on this 'Southern Strategy' to date, but now it tries to extend it nationally. We could say that the GOP 'National Stragety' is the same as it's 'Southern Strategy,' except it replaces 'black people' with 'terrorists and liberals.''

The third paragraph could be unspun to read: 'Now to be sure, the GOP were disgustingly racist in the 196-70's.'

Replace the authors assertions without proof that the other writers failed to meet their analyitical burden with the assertion that they succeded to do so - article is just as accurate.

The whole second section about how old-time Democrats were racists? Irrelevent to the question. Delete. Most of the piece is like this -take the worst argument of people you disagree with and comp it to your best - "Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law."

PS: Nowhere does the article support what little you said about it. Not a word. Show me where it talks about moderate progressives, please? Are you refering to the BS line about "acid, amnesty, and abortion," which is actually just the beginning of the national strategy - "terrorists and liberals" started as "communists and hippies."

Ratatosk

Here and over at Roger Simon's blog, I keep hearing the death knell of the Democratic Party. This is usually surrounded by words like "obvious", "plainly see" and other such bits of vocabulary.

I call Michael’s site more of a "War Liberal" site and Roger's site a more "Neo-con" site. As a former Democrat I find the Democratic Party in the same state the Republicans were after JFK (early 60’s). They will come back but they must become more principled. I think you mischaracterize the death knell topic. The death knell over there is more about the current state of affairs and this election cycle. I think most believe they will get it eventually. (and some cooperation by republicans)

I don’t know your age but as someone going back to Carter in my voting habits (McGovern as a teenager), I know what a reputation for not having the stomach on War/Security Issues gets you on the National stage. Republicans have won more on the National level because of this. Democrats are playing to this stereotype once again. If that is their belief than they should have been principled and gone down “Barry Goldwater style” with Howard Dean. If not than they need to find a better candidate then Kerry, someone better who can make it past the Democratic Primaries. They have displayed in the past no desire for the Scoop Jackson type candidate. Believe me I am a Jew and former liberal. My style Republican is Rudy Giuliani or Arnold Swarzenegger, not Ashcroft (though he is unfarily maligned and way more effective than Reno). When push comes to shove I have decided to ebb to the right and not to the left, few of us get exactly what we want.

Ged of Earthsea --
Unlike you on the one hand and Jesse Jackson on the other, I acknowledge that it is a challenge to balance the principle of colorblindness against the undeniably positive effects that have been the result of affirmative action programs over the past thirty plus years...most notably, the dramatic growth in the black professional class.

Republicans should read O'Conner's decision in the Michigan cases -- a big swaying point for her were the business people who insisted that they NEEDED to be assured that their would be a pool of qualified minorities they could hire. AA in schooling is a way to assure this.

The radical alternative would be to get serious about public education by federalizing funding.

PPS: If furious told me that it would be good for Democrats to come out in favor of 2+2=4, then yes, I'd dismiss it as well. 2+2 does, in fact, equal 4, but if someone who wants me to lose tells me to publicize the fact, that's not exactly a tactically sound move. I don't take advice from people who have my own worst interests at heart.

Hipocrite,

Indeed, if a political party said that 2+2=4 then you can be sure that their political opponents would point out that it actually equals 1 (modulo 3) and proceed to explain that this is a prime example of why that party won't last past the next election.

Ratatosk

Who said... and proceed to explain that this is a prime example of why that party won't last past the next election...?

Samuel,

I'm sorry I didn't think that a post which said 2+2=1mod3 needed a preface saying "Please note this is a silly post".

I know it may be fun to argue my posts, but at least try to argue the ones where I'm semi-serious... maybe you need to get out more.

Ratatosk

Oh I was taking serious your declarations that we are predicting the Democratic Party's death over at Roger's site. If not then the line between serious and joking is just a little over the top. I never even mentioned the math part, jokes are meant to strike at truth, no matter how stereotypical or prejudiced. Maybe I need to lighten up, and maybe you need to acknowledge that jokes and humor mask aggression?

Sam,

Agression? hehehe Agressio0on? W00t~!

YOu asked me "Who said..." as though I were quoting someone and I was not... usually I put quotes in gasp ... quotes.

But, I can see how you would have assimilated the information above processed it in your reality tunnel and came out with the assumption that I was jabbing at someone. I was in fact just jabbing on general principle.

As for your agression, I'm not really sure how jokes and humor mask agression. Perhaps in some deconstructism or post-modernism view, anything may be a covert channel for something else. For Discordians, jokes and humor are used to make us laugh. When one has posted several argumentitive posts (whihc I have) it seems good for everyone to see a silly post, one which people may feel free to laugh, snicker or smile at. Of course, those particularly afflicted with an over-hunched brain, or a skin condition that causes ones face to be grey, may find mirth, laughter, smiling or even realizing that at the end of the day arguments on Blogs, newsgroups, IRC and the like are somewhat like the Special Olympics. (I hope you know the punchline)

Hipocrite:

Actually, since Terry McAuliffe has you lot stepping off the curb into the path of a speeding bus ahead of the General Election, far be it from me to grab you by the shoulder and yank you back to safety.

So much more fun to wait for the SPLAT, and maybe catch the look of horrible realization on your face the split-second before you and that bus meet.

Kinda like the look Kerry had on his face two thirds of the way through his GMA interview...

"Vote FOR Kerry...Before You Vote AGAINST Him!"

Heh,

furious

furious,

you're either:

A. correct in your assertions and predictions, in which case you're an ass

B. incorrect, a fool

If not for you own sake, then for the sake of those misguided souls unjustly killed at Waco, please consider the effects of your comments.

Markus,

You're a true gentleman, if you were running I might have to vote for you on character grounds alone. Unfortunately, it appears that would be all you'd have to run on.

"Unlike you on the one hand and Jesse Jackson on the other, I acknowledge that it is a challenge to balance the principle of colorblindness against the undeniably positive effects that have been the result of affirmative action programs over the past thirty plus years...most notably, the dramatic growth in the black professional class."

Unlike these civil rights agitators on one hand and Bull Connor on the other, I acknowledge that it is a challenge to balance the principle of equality before the law against the undeniably positive effects that have been the result of Jim Crow laws over the past sixty plus years... most notably, the widely acknowledged harmony between the races produced by keeping them nice and separate.

Again, I say NOT to your sophistry. There are some principles for which many in this country have fought and died, together, that we do not lightly cast away.

"a big swaying point for her were the business people who insisted that they NEEDED to be assured that their would be a pool of qualified minorities they could hire. AA in schooling is a way to assure this."

I'm a 34-year-old white male. Do you think I don't know from direct first hand experience that big business is even more gung-ho for racial discrimination than even the academy and governmen