More Moore

[MK]

Originally posted by Paladin
The current incarnation of the Republican Party is dominated by a fanatical, fundamentalist evangelical group of extremists without tolerance for dissent or diversity. Bush came to power with a minority of the popular vote as a result of a disputed election. This is not your father's Republican Party.

Point of information:

George W. Bush got a lot more votes from the people than Clinton.

Bush senior didn't win thanks to Ross Perot. He stole votes from Bush.....the same way Nader did for Gore. If it were not for Ralph.....Gore would be in the White House.

God bless Ralph.

Anyway......Bush had more votes than Clinton......or Gore. But that is a story for another day.

 

[Marlowe]

"Bush came to power with a minority of the popular vote as a result of a disputed election."

True. He won the Electoral College. The Electoral College is supposed to prevent "mobocracy." It was all above-board and legal (despite Michael Moore's contention that Bush is a "fictional President" who "stole the election").

(Shame on you, Michael Moore!)

Incidentally, the Electoral College is one of the features that makes our government a republic, not a democracy.

 

[Paladin]

Clinton received more votes than the other candidates running at the time. The same situation that occured with every presidential election before 2000 except one, in the 19th century. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Bush received less popular votes than another candidate in the same election, Al Gore. Bringing up Clinton's name does not detract from the fact that Bush received less votes than Gore. Bush wasn't running against Clinton, so the point of information is irrrelevant. Gore also had more votes than Clinton, which is also irrelevant.

There is no shame for Michael Moore to point out that there were some very disturbing aspects of the 2000 election. And those who condemn him for doing so would, I believe, have been on line for Al Gore's head had the situation been reversed. An example:

Presidential Election Scenario 2000--Al Gore is running a very close race with George Bush. It comes down to one state. In Pennsylvania, where Al's brother Christopher Gore is governor, and the official heading up Gore for President PA is responsible for counting the ballots and certifying the state election--there is disputed ballot-counting. The media has called the election that evening for George Bush once they announce PA for Bush. However, suddenly Liberal News Channel switches that call on PA's results from Bush to Gore when Al's cousin, Tom, who has been running the coverage of the PA election, calls in to tell them to do so. As a result, Liberal News Channel's national anchors now announce PA has switched from Bush to Gore. The PA Gore for President leader announces she has certified the election results for Al Gore. With that, the rest of the media now calls the national election for Al Gore. Bush protests and lawyers get involved. The case goes to a liberal-packed Supreme Court and they rule in favor of Al Gore. The ballot-counting has been ordered stopped, even though there seems to be particular discrepancies in several PA counties that have been Bush-supporting. The Supreme Court certifies that Al Gore is the new president---George W. Bush has won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote as a result and President Al Gore is sworn in.

Now given that scenario, we would still see a line down Pennsylvania Avenue of Republicans screaming for special investigations, refusing to call Gore president, trying to pass all kinds of bills to prevent Gore from remaining president and the Supreme Court from being seated. What do you thnk Rush Limbaugh would be saying on his show? There would be obstructionism like we've never seen, and paralysis of government due to the various investigations launched by the Republican Party since the moment the Supreme Court gavel went down. Strange, but none of that has happened since the situation was reversed and Bush was inaugurated. It hasn't stopped people from crying foul, but the government has gone on. I repeat--given the reverse scenario I discribe above, not only would you have reacted the same as Michael Moore, but the Republican Party would have shut down the federal government. As it did for almost eight years when it was pursuing Bill Clinton over Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, the death of Jimmy Hoffa and the dissappearance of Amelia Earhardt.

 

[Marlowe]

"There is no shame for Michael Moore to point out that there were some very disturbing aspects of the 2000 election."

Of course not. There WERE disturbing aspects of that election. However, to call Bush a "fictitious President" and accuse him of "stealing the election" is perhaps overstating the case.

Also, to attribute behavior of Republicans to some might-have-been event is just speculation. Not all Republicans are obnoxious, blow-hard revisionists like Rush Limbaugh.

Remember: the vote recounting in Florida was carried out under intense scrutiny by the news media. But the votes kept adding up to a wider and wider margin of victory for Bush.

(Interestingly, similar charges of vote-tampering were leveled against the Kennedy campaign in Chicago.)

In American politics, both major parties have their hypocrites. Just as Rush Limbaugh is one on the right, so, too is Michael Moore on the left. In my opinion, neither one has ANY credibility. They're both snake-oil salesmen.

 

[Captain Krunch]

The fact that Bush got more votes than Clinton is relevant because no one ever accuses Clinton of being an illegitimate president, despite the fact that in 1992, Clinton won only 43% of the popular vote (Versus 48% of the popular vote for Bush in 2002). What?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s really interesting is how these popular vote percentages equate to Electoral College votes. In 1992, Clinton?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s 43% popular vote was good enough for 69% of the Electoral vote, while in 2000, Bush?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s 48% was only good enough for 50% of the Electoral vote. It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s instances like this that show just how lucky we are to have the Electoral College, because it prevents presidential candidates from focusing on just the large population states to get a large popular vote; they must also campaign in the smaller states in order to win the majority of Electoral votes.

With respect to your use of the term ?¢‚Ǩ?ìTaliban?¢‚Ǩ? to describe the Republican Party, what you are actually doing is diminishing the horrible actions of the real Taliban. In an article I read last week, the author made a strong case against using such strong words to describe people and events. We must maintain proportion in the use of our language - otherwise, we lose perspective of the people and events we are trying to describe. As the author states:

?¢‚Ǩ?ìCare for language is more than a concern for purity. When one describes President Bush as a fascist, what words remain for real fascists? When one describes Fallujah as Stalingrad-like, how can we express, in the words that remain to the language, what Stalingrad was like??¢‚Ǩ?

If you want to damn people and events, then please damn them for what they are, and not how you perceive them to be.

 

[Paladin]

The Bush administration based their invasion of Iraq on speculation. That's a whole lot of activity from speculation. I believe that, when Republicans minimize those who remain critical of Bush's "victory", then the turn-around example is very fair to use. And most Republicans, when the 2000 election is brought up, respond with hypocritical "move on, get off the subject" responses. The vote recount in Florida was prematurely ended by almost evenly-split Supreme Court. All the votes weren't counted and neither was there a full and public investigation of votes that were discounted.

Perhaps if the situation had been reversed, as I described, you would not be so quick to minimize Moore's reference to Bush "stealing the election".

 

[MK]

Alan Colmes....who is a liberal Democrate that I respect because him holds principle over politics said it best when he said that liberals that are still fighting the 2000 election are not doing their cause any good. He feels that they should put that behind them and fight for 2004.

I agree with him.

George W. Bush IS the President of the United States.

Alan agrees and states that Bush is his president too. That is the way it should be.

I didn't vote for Clinton and despise what he did to the office....but he was MY President.....and I will respect the office....even when I don't agree with the fellow in charge.

 

[Paladin]

I don't think what transpired in the 2000 presidential election should be forgotten in order that it doesn't happen again. And it could. But it should also be considered when it comes to monitoring the method of operation of this administration. There is innordinate secrecy and absolutist use of power that has been endemic with these people.

Bush holds the office of president. I am a life-long student of presidential history, degreed in history from American University in Washington, DC. I handed out my first political brochure as a child for John F. Kennedy in 1960 and proudly cast my first vote for president for George McGovern in 1972. I respect the office of the presidency. But I don't respect George Bush. I've lived in this state while he was rising to power. We are living with the remaining odor of his governorship. My daughter's education suffers as a result of his policies. The politics in Texas have become an acidic microcosm of what's happening in Washington. You thnk it's a coincidence? I think not.

And now another political season is upon us. Watch what these people do. They are capable of anythng. I never trust people who use fear as a means for achieving and remaining in power. There is more special interest corporate money behind this administration than at any time in our history. And when so much money and power comes together, the average citizen--you and me--are somehow forgotten. Keep low to the ground, keep your eyes (and minds) open.

 

[Paladin]

Captain Krunch--You miss the point of the illegitimacy claims against Bush and how it relates to the vote count in 2000. No one is saying that Bush is illegitimate because he didn't get the majority of the votes--your reference ot Clinton--but becuase he got less votes than his rival in the same election. What percentage of the total vote candidates got in previous elections is immaterial to this point. It's that he got less than his opponent in the same election.

I use the term "Taliban" not to diminish the actions of the Afghan Taliban, but to accurately portray the actions of the clique currently in power within the Republican Party. Not all Republicans, and not all conservatives (although there are fewer and fewer in the GOP who would not classify themselves as conservatives)--just the clique in power at this time. Using your words, I'm damning them for what they are.

 

[The_Edge]

 

[The_Edge]

 

[Paladin]

Now that was mature. Here we were having a nice conversation, sharing our own words and thoughts, and you have to spray-paint grafitti.....now the place looks like an old subway car......

 

[Hamsterjeep]

This attachment say a lot.

 

[Paladin]

MK, Marlowe---Been nice chatting with you fellows on this subject. Healthy and hearty debate as gentlemen. The grafitti children are here, so I'll grab a cigar and single malt and relax in the sidebar until they've left the room. If we don't resume, I just wanted to let you know I've enjoyed the exchange in the high spirit with which it was intended. I look forward to our discourse again in the near future.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Moore is a Weapon of Mass Distraction in the War on Terror.

Unfortunate for you, Pal?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ Edge actually ?¢‚Ǩ?ìvoices?¢‚Ǩ? many of our thoughts. It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s ok when Moore gets in our faces and acts obnoxious, but it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s not ok when conservatives do it?

This might be the first time I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ll say this, but it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s not going to be the last. I have arrived to the point where I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m sick and tired of arguing about Politics and The War On Terror because it only further illustrates how foolish, idiotic, short sighted and ignorant of recent history the people on the Left are. ?¢‚Ǩ?ìDon?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t confuse me with the facts when my mind is made up on how evil President Bush is?¢‚Ǩ?.

Tim Russet (On NBC, for crap sake) played clips of both Bubba Clinton AND John Kerry voicing their concern about the events in Iraq, Saddam?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s weapons programs and the inevitability of there being weapons of mass destruction being used against Israel, our allies in Europe and here in the United States. And yet?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ when ?¢‚Ǩ?ìW?¢‚Ǩ? uses September 11th 2001 as the breaking point and says: ?¢‚Ǩ?ìEnough is Enough?¢‚Ǩ?, Leftist get pissy.

They can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t stand the fact that ?¢‚Ǩ?ìW?¢‚Ǩ? did everything Clinton, Gore, Kerry, the Democrats in the House and the Senate SAID what should be done. ?¢‚Ǩ?ìW?¢‚Ǩ? is the doer; The libs are just yappers. The only way they can expel some of their frustration is to trash ?¢‚Ǩ?ìW?¢‚Ǩ? with some half-informed ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú half truths and gutter-mouth innuendo and libelous accusations.

By the way? Did you ever get to read that Hitchens artcle on Slate?

?¢‚Ǩ?ìW?¢‚Ǩ? backed up the UN resolutions, including the Surrender that brought an end to Gulf War I. The United Nation that the left hold up as their God, the United Nations that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s supposed to be perfect?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ the United Nations that Saddam laughed at: ?¢‚Ǩ?ìI?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m going to do what I want, and there?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s nothing you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re going to do besides pass another ?¢‚ǨÀústern resolution?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢. Don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t make me laugh.?¢‚Ǩ? Again, ?¢‚Ǩ?ìW?¢‚Ǩ? backed up with actions what the UN tried to do with words alone.

The Taliban Wing of the the Republican Party.

That?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s just a Micheal Moore quote?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ something that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s said to demean conservatives. Sorry, Paladin?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ but I suspect you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re not here to ?¢‚Ǩ?ìDebate?¢‚Ǩ?. You?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re here to convert.

You come off as someone who believes that Moore is right not because of his facts, but because of his motives. How?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s that Kool-Aid taste? Is the poison of Moore?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s propaganda tart enough for you?

 

[Chamorro]

To Paladin,

Point one:

Satire and humor have always been a part of political debate. That's kind of the whole point of this thread, isn't it? Perhaps you are not as thick-skinned as you claim to be.

Point two:

Calling fellow members "children." You have degenerated into name calling. To this point, no one else has called you a name, either directly or indirectly, i.e., the "Taliban" wing of the Democratic party.

Get off your high horse. That dog don't hunt.

Oops, mixing metaphors. How very gauche ...

 

[jamespowers]

I have been reading at the sidelines for this whole debate here. It is all very interesting.
I see that we can make up opposing scenarios that are not borne out by history. It seems to me that if Republicans were as strenuous as Democrats have been recently concerning GW; we would still be citing the "illegitimate election" of Kennedy based on ballot box stuffing and mob hijinx or the illegitimate election previously referred to in the 19th century.
Bush may not be as fiscally responsible as I would like and he may not be as eloquent in speech as I would like in some situations but he is the president because our form of government is as it is. If you would like a pure democracy then fight for that but it is not logistically feasible even now with our high tech age. If we were a democracy then why do we need congressmen, senators and the like? We could just put something up to a national referendum. That would just be wonderful to see everyone voting themselves largess and breaking the government wouldn't it?
Lastly, the "Taliban Wing of the Republican Party" is a pejorative term that does not need to be used in a debate. It makes the opposing side bristle and come up with their own terms such as the ?¢‚Ǩ?ìStalinist Wing of the Democrat Party?¢‚Ǩ? or the ?¢‚Ǩ?ìMarxist Wing of the Democrat Party.?¢‚Ǩ? They would then refer to Ted Kennedy, Senator ?¢‚Ǩ?ìSheets?¢‚Ǩ? Byrd, Pete Stark, Shelia Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee and a host of other extremists as representing the Democrat Party. This turns it into a personality debate and not an issues debate. I don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t care who is right or wrong. It is always what is right or wrong that interests me. Perhaps if Congress started thinking that way then more would get done for the benefit of the people and not solely the special interests.
Paladin, you are a good judge of whiskey so there is something to be said of that.

Regards to all,

J

 

[MK]

This thread needs to be kept civil and not make it personal.

There are far more conservatives in The Fedora Lounge than liberals. That doesn't mean we should blast the minority here. Actually, I feel that there is an opportunity to share our thoughts in a positive way with fellow members.

If we can't express our ideals and convictions without name calling then we are lost and not effective.

The truth can stand on it's own. If not we need to re-examine our beliefs.

 

[kite005]

I think we all should be civil.
But I have my views.
My own.
Bush, to me is a man who is not wise.
It seems hard for him to make 5 sentences in a row. Or even two.
All of that is depended on how you vote this year. Do you trust bush to do the right thing? In my view he hasn't done it so far.
Rumsfield and Cheney are idiots as far as I can tell. Powell I think is one who concernes himself with loyalty right now. Not with his heart. So vote for the man you think is wise. thats all I can ask

 

[Chamorro]

Who, John Kerry? Pray tell ... WHAT exactly, does John Kerry believe in? He plays both sides, is wishy-washy on the issues and contradicts himself at every turn. He does and says what is politically expedient at a particular time and always says whatever (he thinks) the people he stands in front of want to hear. He can't EVEN make up his mind if he wants to be a Jew or a Catholic, for heaven's sake!

Is a person who believes in nothing really a wise man or just an opportunist? Bush is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but he surrounds himself with very smart people and though not everyone agrees in what he believes in, at least he believes in something.