quote:

---

Power is more important than the health of our system to some people. That's why we should keep a very skeptical, even cynical, eye on those who wish to change it.

---

I'll tell you one thing I'd like to change about the process...the sniping. The really personal crap that is meant solely to influence the baser emotions. The Dems say Bush was AWOL, what crap. The Reps say Kerry is a Jane Fonda flunky, what horseshit. Don't these guys have bigger issues to address? When the focus of the surrogates becomes whether Bush is an idiot or Kerry is vain, I just wonder why they shy away from the real issues, where there are real differences. Is it all about scare and smear tactics?

One telling thing about this election in particular is how fear is being used to manipulate on both sides. Although not a new strategy by any means, it seems to be deployed with special verve in this pronouncely divided electorate. The Republicans are playing on the fear of death by attack so that we will keep our "strong" leader in these times of terrorist hate. The Democrats are playing on the fear of lost wages so that we will lose our "weak" leader in these times of economic stress. Where is the positive message that rings clear and true? That reflects both the fears and hopes of the people? I think someone who spoke with such a message would really capture America as a whole and bring some unity in a time of division. Guess it is too much to hope that someone out there exists who will do just that.

I read this little blurb over at Plastic.com.

This part caught my eye:

"Are the feelings of animosity towards President Bush (or any president for that matter) based in ideology, or are they based more in cultural differences? Do people really react to leaders because of the actions they take or merely because of what they think motivates the people themselves?"

I never understood animosity towards candidates, Clinton, Bush, etc. All we get is a media image of someone, or the unflattering definition from their opposition. None of which is enough to invoke strong feelings of animosity or devotion on my behalf. So why do people develop such strong feelings? Every election season I go into the voting both, not with the inspiration that I am getting behind a truly great candidate and innovative politician, but that I am picking the lesser of two evils. Does anyone else have this feeling?

Now that Kerry is the nominee apparent for the Dems, who would make an ideal running mate? Although I think Edwards performed admirably during the primaries, I don't think he brings any inroads as far as voting blocks that could swing key states. So far, the ideal candidates seem to be Gephardt (MO) and Richardson (NM), maybe Graham (FL). I like Harold Ford (TN), but I'm not sure he has enough name recognition yet. A ballsy move would be to ask McCain, though I think he still wishes to remain in the Republican camp (even though he seems to side with the Democrats on many issues). In all, Richardson would be the best move in my opinion, with his executive experience and obvious draw for the Latino vote. He could help Kerry land Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada at least. Wonder if he would do it?

I saw two of Bushes ads on TV for the first time today. I actually think they were well done. They have the right amount of heart tugs and patriotic vagaries. I can't imagine the good feeling ads will be the centerpiece of the ad blitz however. I am sure the negatives will start soon, from both sides. But, just looking at the Bush ads, I think Kerry is in for a very hard battle. Bush has some talented people working for his campaign.

But I am quite disgusted that we are going to see large sums of money deposited in the campaigns, something like $200 million is estimated to be Bush's final war chest, despite campaign finance reform. Is this not an insane amount of money to run a campaign? Is this much money necessary? Has politics today become nothing more than the stuffing of wallets?

Well I thought I would revive Dar's Political thread with the DNC convention on.

I took a look at Kerry's website. There is relatively little about Kerry on the site. It sugar coats over who he is entirely. Ironically the one thing they do highlight is his Vietnam record. What did I find out is that Kerry was on the Swift boat patrol for less than three months. Kerry opted to leave his crew after his third injury under a provision that let any one who is injured three times to leave. What I want to know is how Kerry could formulate what was happening in Vietnam if he was only on the swift boat and only there for a short time to later protest against the war. Is Kerry's Vietnam record a precursor to what he will do as President. To cut and run.

Kerry's military career looks much more like a shrewd calculating endeavor to further his personal ambitions down the road. Modeled after JFK's service on a PT boat.

There does not seem to be any information on Kerry's website about being a Senator. What committee's did he serve on? The site only mentions the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry has openly said that world leaders have told him they want Kerry to be President and not Bush. Is this how a Senator in a time of war and one that is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should conduct himself to be openly undermining the efforts of the President by getting Foreign leaders to only get on board when Kerry himself is President. Whose interest does such behavior benefit?

At the convention they keep talking about how divided the nation has become.

Whose efforts have divided the nation?

If one looks at the map of the red states/blue states from the last election, it's apparent that this isn't a race between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, per se. It's a race between the city dwellers and the non-city dwellers. It's like the death struggle between the Morlocks and the scruffy, but authentic, humans from H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine", and each side considers themselves the humans. This is the true source of the so-called polarization of America.

Because we are grouping more and more into ever-larger cities, the whole idea of what is civilized and what is civilization is changing and it's changing because of the profound influences of close-in, crowded, technologized city life that has certain rules of its own. Perhaps fundamental to this shift is that the whole definition of danger is changing. Where once the primary danger was defined as an intrusive, powerful government (and the protector against which was a free, individualistic people who actually carried guns, went to church and built strong fences), now danger is defined as individualism itself (at least the wrong kind of individualism; the kind not tightly managed, planned and sanctioned by both political correctness and a smarmy pop culture where "doing one's own thing" is a manner of dress, carefully scheduled recreational periods, or just playing the roll of an individualist while deeply ensconced in a routine a lab rat would turn down). Rogue or unpredictable elements are anathema to a city. It's a natural reaction to living in large, highly-organized confines. In a city, nearly every aspect is managed – or it is attempted to be managed. And if so much as one small thing goes on the fritz – perhaps a circuit breaker or fuse – an entire building can be put out of service and the people within idled, reinforcing their absolute dependence on everything working just so. And since mending is a specialized job, we're not as likely to change that fuse ourselves. Our mindset then becomes one of depending on those above or on organizational structures. We still may pretend we're a class of pull-ourselves-up-by-our-own-bootstraps people, but the way we think and vote is not to fix problems ourselves and to be responsible for our failures, but to blames these problems and shortcomings on "the system." This would make sense only in a city where systems indeed are vitally important.

If one had listened to the speech Clinton gave the other night, you would find plenty of rhetoric about the Morlocks on the right who are seemingly a threat to the left's very existence. Actually, the reverse is the case since we're likely to be living more and more in large cities while the countryside dries up. You can see this shift taking place even now as fewer and fewer Republicans or conservatives talk much about limited government. It's more about where big government will spend its money and who controls it. There are still major differences between the parties, but the agenda of the right has changed following the change in the basic way we are living. But the big question is not Bush vs. Kerry. The big question is whether, long term, it is possible to make this shift to city-centered life, which brings an entirely new culture with an entirely new set of values, while holding onto the core principles and ideals that made America great and made it the beacon of liberty throughouts the world. While the left is ensconced in their hunt for boogey men, the real problems of our culture go unnoticed and untreated (and usually by the left, wholly mistreated). I think this is a consequence both of a different psychology that urban dwellers develop and an immature tendency to lash out at someone else for problems of one's own making. There's little doubt in my mind that as we become more dependent on government and other institutions that this very dependence keeps us much more in a child-like, immature state (which is almost the definition of dependence). If one simply looks objectively at the national Democrat leaders, who often are ranting and raving like spoiled children, I think they make my point for me. But one can also see this attitude in global affairs where it has become almost impossible for a great many people to even believe that terrorism is a more serious problem than either the United States or George Bush.

This, I think, is a useful lens through which to see many of the events that are occurring today in America and around the western world. The danger is that we become so domesticated and cozy in our cities that we lose the ability to make wise and hard choices when needed. Not every problem can be solved by yet another system. Some problems are faults of character. A city would do well to hold onto, and even try to recreate, that frontier spirit and individualism that is the true guardian of liberty.

This is precisely why we have the Electoral College and why it is so important. It means that, worse case scenario with just two parties (more on that later) that each one side can get to near 50% by either going after the more populous states or else going after the rural/less populated states. Were it not for the artifical weight given to less populated states, there would be no reason to bother getting their votes.

Unfortunately this puts too much importance on swing states. But this leads into why we need more that two credible parties or else we are doomed to have 2000 style-elections forever. No, I don't mean Nader or Green. I said credible, not wingnut.

But the idea that the Electoral College is to blame is totally incorrect. The problem is having the brother of the candidate being the Governor of a swing state (and in charge of the state police who are in charge of transporting ballots) plus having the majority of the Supreme Court belong to the other guy's party.

But had the Democrats won in exactly the same way, there would be nothing but praise about how our wonderful system worked it's magic yet again, etc etc...

I want a law passed that says a family member of a presidential candidate must step down as governor during an election year.

This is precisely why we have the Electoral College and why it is so important.

I agree, John. But every now and then we hear calls from the left advocating the elimination of the Electoral College and instigating a purely popular vote. It would certainly be in the interest of the city dwellers to bypass a more republican form of government and run roughshod straight to a pure democracy. It then would become a problem of keeping truly representative government. It's a particular problem we face in Washington State where King County's popular vote, even though the state is divided into legislative districts, has an almost overwhelming effect on regions nowhere near the city.

Unfortunately this puts too much importance on swing states. But this leads into why we need more that two credible parties or else we are doomed to have 2000 style-elections forever. No, I don't mean Nader or Green. I said credible, not wingnut.

In essence, there are at least two parties rolled into each of the major parties. It does create for some amusement though.

I want a law passed that says a family member of a presidential candidate must step down as governor during an election year.

There are entire books written on the subject of the Florida election. I'm not going to get into that aside from saying that it is very important that the rule of law be supreme, and in the case of Florida I think it took a court ruling to prevent the rule of law from being subverted.

The first public statement by Hillary Clinton in 2000 after becoming Senator Clinton was that we should abolish the electoral college. She talks about how our Constitutional rights are being subverted and the first thing she wanted to do as a Senator was change the Constitution for the benefit of mob rule.

I saw a debate between Nader and Howard Dean. Nader was all in favor of abolishing the electoral college. Dean said well no Ralph because my state would never be visited by a Presidental candidate ever again.

What we have been seeing in this Presidential race is Clinton politics. The role reversal routine. The speakers talk at the convention about the polarization of america. The skinny of it is that the polariztion and fear has been created by the likes of Kennedy Daschal Dean Clintons the DNC itself.

This convention has stressed how it is the rich elite against the poor welfare mother. How can the Kerry/Edwards ticket be described in any way other than the rich elite. Kerry/Edwards are in a whole other stratoshpere than Bush/Cheney when it comes to wealth. Kerry/Edwards could buy and sell Bush/Cheney ten times over. Again this is Clinton Politics to reverse the roles.

Kerry as a candidate in the times we are living is about as weak a candidate the DNC could have chosen. The failures within government that led to 911 go hand in hand with Kerry's voting record as a Senator.

Kerry's military record alone is suspect to whether he is fit to be commander and chief. Like I said above after his third injury within days he requested removal from combat duty. As commander of PCF 94 he abandoned his crew after 3 and half months. The swift boats were 50 foot vessels. On more than one occasion Kerry beached his PFC to pursue the enemy. Beached his craft? This has got to be the most dangerous and reckless thing a PCF commander could do with his crew and boat. Once the craft is beached they are now sitting ducks. I can not see how this sort of action is Navy protocol.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RicoX,

quote:

---

The first public statement by Hillary Clinton in 2000 after becoming Senator Clinton was that we should abolish the electoral college. She talks about how our Constitutional rights are being subverted and the first thing she wanted to do as a Senator was change the Constitution for the benefit of mob rule.

---

Yes, let's take that to the logical conclusion and let's have a popular vote on a number of issues that liberals hold dear, such as gay marriage and abortion, and see how they do. A favorite trick, particularly of the Clintons, is to try and rake up the appearance of unfairness even if they have to lie. Luckily there's appropriate institutional inertia between populist demagogues such as these and the law making process. As I said over at Shalom Place in reply to a comment about the amount of baloney coming out of Clinton's mouth:

Taking into account mankind’s long history of doing just that, and acknowledging that this isn’t a new phenomenon, don’t you still have to ask yourself how this can be and why? This is supposed to be an enlightened age and this is supposed to be the enlightened party. So why is this kind of behavior and rhetoric cheered so loudly?

I think in Clinton’s case it’s pretty clear what his appeal is. He makes those who hold ridiculous, unworkable, illogical, unfair or downright dangerous ideas -- ideas that normally wouldn’t and couldn’t flourish in the light of reason -- feel like what they believe in is true and just and perfectly reasonable. And, of course, there’s always enough of a kernel of truth in those ideas to allow a skilled orator to inflate molehills into left wing mountains. And if the ideas themselves can’t stand on their own, then one can simply build them up (using straw men or otherwise) by portraying these ideas, and the people who cherish them, as the saviors of mankind (one wonders if religion is even necessary anymore) because they oppose the evil and unjust Republicans, who we all know are always waiting in the wings to exploit the masses. In my mind it’s simply a milder form of Marxism with all the built-in appeals to class warfare and the perfectibility of human society. And while I believe in aspiring to high ideals, I think it’s quite another thing if those ideals play to nothing more than Utopian ideals that assume that struggle equals injustice. The nature of life is to struggle, to succeed, to fail, and to get up and try again. Basing one’s politics on ameliorating pain isn’t a bad thing unless you take it so far that you teach people nothing more than that if they do struggle it must be because someone else is holding them down. That’s about as un-American-Dream a philosophy as I think you can get.

And boy, does that uniter-not-a-divider, Clinton, know how to demonize the other side. That’s one of his greatest strengths. But his truly remarkable talent is his ability to play to the fringe elements while still sounding sensible enough to a large portion of the population. And I guess that’s a true sign of a charismatic leader. Telling people things that they want to hear, doing so in a believable way, while making them feel better about themselves in the process, no matter what obvious fallacies or lies those ideas are based upon which even a cursory examination would reveal. Clinton knows how to tap those primal feelings that we all have. As I’ve said before, I think there are two kinds of leaders: those who play to our better natures and those who play to our worse ones. Those who can mix the two and make one seem like the other are often highly influential. When there are a number of people, for various reasons, open to such malarkey then it makes the orators job that much easier. I think I’ve just described, in whole, the Democratic National Convention.

I love this line:

quote:

---

He makes those who hold ridiculous, unworkable, illogical, unfair or downright dangerous ideas -- ideas that normally wouldn’t and couldn’t flourish in the light of reason -- feel like what they believe in is true and just and perfectly reasonable.

---

That speaks to what a powerful thing VALIDATION is. But the problem with getting permission or acknowledgement of your ideas or opinions from somebody who isn't you, about what you think or believe, puts them above you. I call that instant aristocracy.

And it's insidious.

For me, the champion eye-roll moment of all time was Teresa Heinz-Kerry addressing the Gay and Lesbian and transgender and whatever-the-hell caucus... and getting them to call her "Mama T"... oh my good sweet merciful crap. Am I the only one who noticed that she played on their obvious immaturity and arrested development, and ended up taking the role of friggin' PARENT? That, to me, is a flavor of demagoguery. Peron pulled the same shit. And sorry, but it can't hide naked political power-hunger from me.

The democratic party has always been the party of marks, rubes, and dupes to me. The silly hats only reinforce that total lack of maturity and desire to be led that invariably causes social dysfunction. And hey, it ain't that the IDEAS underneath the liberal democratic planks don't touch me, they do. It's how easily they're played, and how quickly people abandon rational thought for sentimentality that slays me.

It wouldn't surprise me to see some of these guys go up to the podium with baskets of KITTENS, poor black children, kindly old people... because all I see is a desperate, incessant tugging of heartstrings. It's never really about ideas, as it should be... it's about wearing people down emotionally, getting them riled up or offended, or teary-eyed, and then SNEAKING in an agenda. Like I always say about Christians: they do their best work, when you are at your weakest. Democrats are the same way. When you open your heart, when you FEEL rather than think, they can con you.

And sometimes, GOP-ers are just as friggin' bad. They just tend to use religious morality as their can-openers to your heart. Bush used to talk about compassionate conservatism. That's a direct response to our culture's girlified over-emotionalism. Where we need cold, hard, cynical, even ruthlessly analytical leaders, we get Barney. Well, I don't want to cry and hug, I want results.

I'm sick of every politician being a frikkin' PUSSY. I don't have to love them, or be their friend... I just need them to do their jobs. I don't care if they have cute kids, or hot daughters, or strong loyal wives. I'm looking for intellectual acumen. I'd rather have a pedant in the white house than a parent.

But these days, all you have to do is play to our knee-jerk half-assed, dumbed down, over-sensitivity. The dems are riding the crest of a wave of Bush hatred and outrage, and end up becoming a party of pouters instead of producers. They're the X-Men of the world. They live in a roses-and-sunshine reality which crumbles the minute they FACE the reality they have to suspend to join.

The GOP ain't no better. They lever a kind of religious, seat-of-the-pants morality of tradition. It's just another flavor of parenting. One that likewise sets the stage for the same kind of quick-to-become-offended bullshit that's ruining this country.

And it ruins it because we love to be conned. If we got what we NEEDED in leaders, we'd be bored. Life wouldn't be as histrionic or exciting or chaotic. We routinely trash GREAT ideas for silly bogus ones, just because they're different. We'll cleave to a soundbyte like it's a pearl, and completely miss the illogic or consequences of a certain idealogy. We live in a world where the vocabulary is more important than the issue. Where emotion is more important than intellect, and the national passtime is getting personally affronted.

It's a time in history where people are all on about cynicism. Well guess what? Cynicism is a perfectly reasonable response to what's going on in the world. It debunks the cons, the deception, and gets us thinking again. In order for us to TRUST our leaders again, they have to become trustWORTHY. And if they crumble at the first cynic in their path, they ain't.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: thalo,

quote:

---

And boy, does that uniter-not-a-divider, Clinton, know how to demonize the other side. That’s one of his greatest strengths.

---

Unlike Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter (“Reporting from the Spawn of Satan Convention...”), and those other models of the Age of Enlightenment discourse?


Markle

The best part of all is that Democrats are being duped by the Clintons entirely.

Kerry winning does not fit into their plans. The last thing they want to happen is Kerry to win. Funny the DNC put the Clintons on the podium first. They played the crowd like the pro politicians they are giving just enough as if they cared about Kerry. They know Kerry is about as weak a candidate as could have been put forward. That is what really fits into their plans.

I did not see every minute of this convention but it seemed to me that it took 3 days until someone important on the podium actually asked the delegates to offer some gratitude to the men and woman in uniform serving over seas. That is pathetic.

Does this convention actually represent registered Democrats?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RicoX,

I sat thru Kerry's acceptance speech. I want to be an informed voter.

The best part was near the end where Kerry said "let's not make this a campaign of small minded attacks". This statement came immediately after Kerry had just made a series of small minded attacks.

quote:

---

The best part was near the end where Kerry said "let's not make this a campaign of small minded attacks". This statement came immediately after Kerry had just made a series of small minded attacks.

---

The ol' "head 'em off at the pass" strategy. Make a bunch of small minded attacks and then try to insulate yourself from the inevitable counter-attacks by attempting to pre-define them as small-minded (and presumably, by association, your initial attacks were somehow big-minded).

my favorite thaloian tactic that Kerry is using, is saying things like "I don't wear my religion on my sleeve." leaving the door wide open for chimps to jump to the obvious conclusion that ol' you-know-who DOES wear his on his sleeve.

Very effective rhetoric. Totally coached. Say what you'll do, but do it in a backhanded, downtalking way. I will be truthful to the american people, not misleading... I will say "nuclear" properly...

Hahaahaahhaaahaaa

Who needs all those news outlets when all you have to do is visit thalo.net to get at the heart of things.

RicoX said:

"Kerry's military record alone is suspect to whether he is fit to be commander and chief. Like I said above after his third injury within days he requested removal from combat duty. As commander of PCF 94 he abandoned his crew after 3 and half months. The swift boats were 50 foot vessels. On more than one occasion Kerry beached his PFC to pursue the enemy. Beached his craft? This has got to be the most dangerous and reckless thing a PCF commander could do with his crew and boat. Once the craft is beached they are now sitting ducks. I can not see how this sort of action is Navy protocol."

I came to this conclusion from only reading what it said on Kerry's official website. Holy crap now there is a book to back up what I had surmised. And not some third party slander novel but actual swift boat vets that served along side Kerry on the day he received his bronze star and final purple heart the ticket to get him out of Vietnam.

The best part of all of this is Kerry's reaction.

Here is a Kerry statement today:

"My duty is to be a president who tells the truth instead of hiding behind front groups,"

Hide behind front groups. What a hoot. These so called front groups the "527" groups which the swift-boats for truth are classified as are grouped in with moveon.org and a whole slew of other .orgs that are unfortunately for Kerry part of the Democratic Party. Everything Kerry has accused Bush of the last several days Kerry himself is guilty. Apparently these Democratic leaning groups have spent at a rate about 5 times as the Republican leaning groups such as the swift-boat vets. Out of roughly 120 million dollars spent on advertising from "527" Kerry's boys have spent 100 million. Didn't Kerry just say he will be a President who tells the truth. I guess the truth will come once Kerry is not hiding behind front groups.

Remember you heard it here first at thalo.net were the truth is fact.

I guess you know by now that a lawyer for the Bush campaign resigned today because it came out that he was advising that “independent” veterans group.

That “Swiftboat Veterans for Bush” (or whatever they’re called) was obviously a stunt by Karl Rove and the Rovettes from the get-go.

Why are you still talking about those charges they’re making against Kerry as if they’re true, when the records and the testimony of guys who were actually there prove that they’re a pack of lies?

Look what the Bushies did to John McCain and Max Cleland. They will do or say ANYTHING. Doesn’t the utter ruthlessness and lack of the slightest shred of decency or civility on their part bother anyone around here?

Markle

Oh Jesus you can't be serious Markle.

I thought you were a lawyer?

Swift Boats for truth are men that served along side Kerry in the same unit. The swift boats patroled in groups. They were there the day Kerry was on his final patrol before Kerry abandoned his crew. Their account of what happened that day is nothing like what Kerry claims happened that day. Should we discredit the crews from the four other patrol boats that were with Kerry's boat that day?

quote:

---

Should we discredit the crews from the four other patrol boats that were with Kerry's boat that day?

---

Should we discredit the crew that was actually on the SAME boat as Kerry, EVERY ONE of whom supports Kerry and says the pro-Bush veterans are lying? Should we discredit the guy that Kerry saved, who’s a Republican but came forward to support Kerry because he KNOWS that Kerry rescued him under fire?

Follow the proof where it actually goes, not where those with an axe to grind want you to BELIEVE it goes.

Markle

Sorry Markle I have heard first person testimony from the other Swift boats that were on patrol with Kerry. There eyewitness account contradicts what Kerry says happens.

Rassman the Green Beret Kerry "saved" was only on Kerry's boat that one day. Rassman fell off Kerry's boat because Kerry speed up river after PFC 3 had a mine explode beneath it. Out of the 5 patrol boats Kerry's boat PFC 94 was the only boat that speed up river. Kerry claims all the boats speed away. All the other boats stayed behind to help the disabled PCF 3. None of these boats report taking any enamy fire and they were helping a disabled boat in the water. If any boats were to take enamy fire wouldn't you think it would be these boats since they are not speeding away. Kerry then raced back to pull Rassman from the water who had fallen off his own boat. Another boat had started moving in to pull Rassman from the water but Kerry came barreling in to get Rassman. The other boat did not report any enamy fire which was only yards away.

The wounds Kerry got that day were a bruise on his arm treated with a cold compress and a flesh wound on his ass. The wound on his ass was caused earlier in the day when Kerry exploded a percussion grenade in a small boat at a village up river that had rice in it. Kerry did not get out of the way in time when the grenade went off which pelted Kerry's ass with rice were he sustained the injury he later receives a purple heart.

This is all eyewitness accounts of that day. The swift boat vets have asked Kerry for 30 years to set the record straight. Kerry hides behind the records because Kerry will not release his records because it shows him as a reckless swift boat commander. Who abandoned his crew only after 3 and half months.

Kerry is a fraud.