I guess you mean he won the one vote of the Supreme Court that he needed to override the majority of votes by regular American citizens?
That's how it works, though. For example, Republicans get nasty to win in '72. Democrats are outraged. Democrats get nasty, using some of the same tactics (though not all, of course, as far as we know) to keep Bork off the Supreme Court. Republicans are outraged. Republicans later engage in the same tactics. Democrats are outraged. Or Democrats launch several investigations of the Republican president, even those that are severely unlikely or based on incredibly weak evidence. Republicans are outraged. Republicans get into power in Congress, launch several investigations against Democratic president, even those that are severely unlikely or based on incredibly weak evidence. Democrats are outraged. And so on. That's what modern politics is all about. Be against whatever the other side is doing. Be for whatever your side is doing, even if your side is doing something that you were against when the other side did it. And now here comes the defense of the October Surprise investigation and the attack of the Whitewater prosecution... and vice versa.
I think its been established that he won the popular vote in Florida too (verified by several major media outlets). How long are bitter Dems going to hang onto this?
And who's fault is that? Republicans spent 8 years and millions of dollars trying to pin something on him. He lied about a blowjob. It's not like he lied about reasons to justify invading a country. It's not like he started breaking campaign promises in his first 2 months of office.
You're right Codell. While I'm not a Dem, I am bitter still. I guess if Bill Mahr can let it go, I should too.
He's a frigin' adult. You get the hummer, you face the consequences. The impeachment was the reason for delay, it is not an excuse to absolve his responsibilities in the disaster. The dems would not win as long as they are so preoccupied with the past. The Florida fetish deverted huge amounts of resources and was a major reason for defeat in 02.
I concur and all this garbage from folks in power about suppressing dissent or dissent is traitorous (Rumsfeld, Ashcroft) seems the height of arrogance.
Just from a political point of view, Kerry's comments are in line with his election hopes. Look, this early in the political season, Kerry's primary job (no pun intended) is to prove to HIS constituents that he is the man for the job. After all, he has to win his party's nomination. What he said is very much in line with the liberal democrats he will need to win the primaries. Early in every election cycle, you will almost unanimously find candidates playing to their own crowd. That is why the rhetoric is so heated in the primaries. They need to win the votes of the party loyalists. At this point, he isn't concerned about convincing voters to switch teams. That is what the general election is for. Right now, he has to be focused on getting votes from people who already support his position. These are heavily entrenched liberal democrats. If you go to them with a middle-of-the-road political stance now, you won't make it to the general election. So, don't be too surprised at stuff like this. It is how the political election process works.
Some would say he did. I know the Gays in the Military group thought Don't Ask, Don't Tell was an unacceptable compromise that went back on a campaign promise. We could also go to the promised middle class tax cut, the 10% "millionaire" surcharge (which became a $250,000 income surcharge after the election), the attack on the Bush Administration's policy toward Haitian Refugees that Clinton ended up continuing after the election, or his energy tax cuts which became energy tax increases in the budget bill he presented after the election. And obviously if George Stephanopoulos actually said "This President has kept the promises he MEANT to keep." then certainly some campaign promises were not kept. Now, I'm not saying that changing one's support for certain things after an election is necessarily a bad thing. For one thing, it's one thing to say something on the campaign trail and quite another to get it through Congress, etc. And circumstances change. A middle class tax cut may sound like a good idea in January and a horrible idea by the next February. But I don't think you can say that George W. Bush (or Bill Clinton for that matter) is somehow unique in not keeping campaign promises.
Not certain what protesters have to do with this argument. To be exact, Bush I started Somalia, so it was inherited. I'll give you Rwanda, the entire West failed there and the former Yugoslavia. I think it was criminal of us to embargo weapons to the Muslims there. If you read congressional criticism of our involvement in the place formerly known as Yugoslovia, one would read the refrain often, we don't support our president, but we do support our troops... We couldn't commit ground troops there to make them surrender because the Republicans wouldn't commit to supporting Clinton doing it. So we got a prolonged air war with approximately zero US casualties, and untold continued atrocities.
I would guess that the answer would be that there's a difference between commentators offering commentary (or your buddy saying something while you're hanging out) and people taking to the streets in protest. But I don't deny that you hear voices in your head, either.
I think Jeff is right - he's just doing this to win over the antiwar/staunchly anti-Bush liberal faction of the Democratic party. As the article noted, Dean is extremely close, and to secure a primary victory Kerry will have to steal some of these people from him. I would say, however, that this strategy does not bode well for his actually winning the election. To do that he will have to steal some of the more moderate or even conservative votes from Bush, and he is not going to do that by appealing to the antiwar/anti-Bush left. Personally, I think that the general antiwar stance that much of the democratic party has adopted may come back to haunt them in the next election. I understand that they seek to secure the leftist/antiwar vote, but they fail to realize that they already have that. If they are seeking a majority here, then they are out of touch with reality. Or at least the polls.
Well yeah, but they were outspoken on everything Clinton did (like I said before, just part of the political process these days). I thought that went without saying. But I guess that would be the same as Sen. Kerry saying what he's saying now.
Bush I started the humanitarian operation in Somalia. Clinton turned it into a witch hunt while pulling the rug out from under the military forces in country, that turned it into a debacle. Clinton should have either pulled out when the humanitarian mission was accomplished or given the military what it asked for in order to accomplish the warlord hunt it turned into. Don't blame Bush I for that one. Three names: Les Aspin, Colin Powell, and Bill Clinton. (mostly Les Aspin)
You're asking the wrong person (and I know you're not really asking me directly). I said I was for his saying whatever he wants to say.
(excuse me while I go into dreamland....) I wonder how different things would be if all parties had equal financing and exposure when running for office? How nice would it be if citizens were allowed to make their decisions based on facts, not empty promises? Both Dems and Reps claim to not condone attack ads, yet both sides succumb to them because it has been proven that they are effective. Isn't this a form of brainwashing? Why are Dems and Reps scared to debate other party candidates? (...back to reality...) The status quo sucks! I think I'm all fiesty today because I'm convinced the Rockets have blown their chances to make the playoffs. I'm not sure who I am more pissed off about, Bush or the Rox!
