Rage? WTF? My posts have about a tenth of the venom you see from some of the posters on this board. I think the level of fraud and the consequences of that fraud and the direction in which this administration is heading in terms of consolidation of power brings us to a moment where this administration must be checked fiercely. This is the most serious abuse of power in my lifetime, no question about it. If we let this slide, what is next? Lying over national security issues is a little different than lying to get a freeway to nowhere in the next budget.
You must be young. There is nothing good that can come of another impeachment. As I said, if you want change, then work for the candidate(s) of your choice. I hope they don't break your heart when you find they all have feet of clay.
I think $300+ billions and 2000+ livies are pretty legitimate reasons to bring Bush under oath. MUCH more legitimate than a BJ. You think I would feel not as strong about impeaching Bush had republicans not gone after Clinton? These are two seperate issues.
Agreed, and the illegal wiretapping is probably just the tip of the iceberg. GW makes Nixon look like a saint. DD
Since when have Presidents been saints? Let's look at some of some of the more esteemed in this century: Ronald Reagan: Iran Contra. John F. Kennedy: Bay of Pigs / Vietnam / Marilyn Monroe( ) Franklin D. Roosevelt: Wholesale Imprisonment of Japanese-Americans / WWII Theodore Roosevelt: Panama Canal
Howard Dean is definitely middle of the road. His stance on gun control, welfare, budget, and just about everything else are completely middle of the road. The problem is that the GOP has painted him as out there because of his personality. They were successful because of that, and not because of his stances on the issues. If you feel he is far left, please provide positions where he actually is far left. I have yet to really see any from him. I will try and answer the rest of yours and geeimsoboard in the same post, or at least come give a general response.
Holding people in power accountable for the harm they do to the nation is always good. It's not about candidates or choosing sides for me. It's about the continued unravelling of the checks and balances which are so important to our Democratic system. This can't continue IMHO.
I don't think it's fair to blame everything on GOP. Dems decided to pick Kerry over Dean, not the GOP. In fact, it was the Dems who "has painted him as out there because of his personality", or at least supported that. Everybody was so obsessed with his "uhrrrrrrrrr...". "Smart" democrates distanced themselves to Dean, just like they did when Clinton was impeached for a BJ. What kind of message have Dems sent over the years? They won't stand up for or stick to their own guy in a tough time, not to mention some unknown average voters.
I don't think it was Clinton's policies that enabled him to win Tenn. or other southern states. It was Clinton himself, and his charisma. He was southern and really connected to people in a way that helped him win those votes. If someone who offered a real change in direction for our nation, and its leadership had that kind of Charisma he could win those states, especially if he was from the South. But even if he didn't win those states, he wouldn't have to. The candidate would only have to get enough turn out in Ohio, Fla, and key places like that to change the outcome. He could lose Ark. and Tenn and other states Clinton won, and still come out on top. As for the GOP voters who are disillusioned with Bush, they shouldn't be a concern. Bush isn't able to run again. And if two candidates are close together on position my guess they will choose the GOP candidate knowing that they can't be another Bush. The Dems don't need disillusioned GOP voters to vote for Dems. They just need them to not show up in such heavy numbers as they have. A charismatic Dem who can get soundbite length ideas out there will win a few disillusioned voters anyway, and as long as he doesn't rile up the hatred of the others and scare tactics like gay marriage won't bring them out in droves, the election is winnable by the Dems. And even if they loose, they loose making a stand, with a restored backbone, instead of looking like the wishy washy piles of jello they have looked like recently.
The Dems made bad decisions, and so did Howard Dean. But the Dems weren't the ones who came up with the idea that a moderate like Howard Dean was far left. You are absolutely correct that they didn't stand by him, but he didn't actually stand by himself. He came out of the gate swinging, with new ideas that he didn't back down from, and he attracted a lot of attention. As it looked like he might actually win, his campaign style changed, softened, and fizzled. He stopped pounding his opposition to the war, and tried to tone down into what everyone else felt like the "model candidate" should campaign like. And when he did that he lost his passion, and his strong stance on issues that mattered to him didn't look so strong.
FB, I may have been wrong on Dean to include him in my list of "neo-demos". I know the NRA has listed him as a "friendly" in the past...As you are aware I lean "left" on many domestic issues, but I'm typically "right" on national defense/personal defense...the more I have thought of it, the more I felt he wasn't far left after all...But what gets me is his seeming vitriotic hatred for the right sided ideology...Actually his style has set me back many times in the past. His "style" has hurt him, no doubt... But, would you say he would represent what I feel best covers my concerns as a candidate?
Yes, Dean made a bad decision. But why did he change style? Could it be that his "standing up" style is not what Dems preferred, and therefore not rewarded? I have no doubt that if he could confront Buch in election, he would gain more votes in the middle. But, can he pass the primary with his passion? I don't think Dems like that. It takes guts and conviction to be committed. Being flexible and open-minded doesn't mean you are ready to switch even before you start.
I think he would represent your concerns regarding the 2nd amendment, but I am not sure you would agree with all his moves regarding Iraq. Yes his style was to take a strong stand against the Bush administration. I think that Bush won much of what support he won by sticking to his guns, and his convictions. That steadfastness came off looking strong and leader-like to many people. Dean started off looking that way to many with a different ideology. But he stopped doing what had worked, and tried to show that he could be main stream. His support kind of faltered at that point, and it fell apart for him. I guess in the end he didn't have what it took to make it through the process.
Dude, I said it makes Nixon...LOOK like a Saint...none of them are Saints. Well, except for Saint Reagan. DD
I just wanteed to point out that Jack Kennedy was seriously looking at pulling out of Vietnam shortly before his death. I've posted the declassified memo from him here before regarding that, but, of course, we can't search for it, so it would take me awhile to dig it up. LBJ was the one who used a bogus attack by North Vietnam to ramp up the war and get a blank check from Congress to do it. Also, as you know, JFK boinked a lot more chicks than Marilyn. The press knew about it and the press back then felt that it fell under the personal life of JFK, and that it didn't pertain to his job as President. Would that the press of today operated the same way. Eisenhower had a mistress during WWII who was on his staff. The press knew about it, and turned a blind eye to the fact. They also didn't bring it up when Ike ran for office. Somehow, the country survived. Keep D&D Civil.
Deckard, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they weren't good Presidents -- just that they weren't saints. DaDakota damns Nixon. He was a sinner, no doubt. But who opened the door to China and ended the Vietnam War? The old press tended to have a blind eye toward a lot of Presidential personal flaws. For example, they never showcased FDR's disability. That wouldn't be the case today. My point is that every President with a few exceptions (William Henry Harrison, for example, didn't have enough time in office to screw up) could have been impeached for some action or another. I love the classic example of Teddy Roosevelt because he started civil wars in Central America and told all sorts of whoppers to Congress to get the Panama Canal started. Under today's rules he definitely would have been impeached. I fear we would not have the Panama Canal, a strategic piece of engineering that changed the global economy and affected geopolitics for decades. Fair and just .... no. Good result....yes.
