>>It's ridiculous equating the speech of Lee and >>Rove. Lee is an ultra-left winger whose views >>represent a tiny minority of Democrats.
Fair enough. But you seemed to miss the fact that Ron Dellums WAS the ranking Democrat who stated a wish to dismantle parts of the defences of the USA. Also, if certain commentators are anything to go by, Clinton could have dealt with Bin Laden after the embassy bombings but he chose to do NOTHING except for bombing a Sudanese asprin factory.
So are you saying that ranking Dems who consorted with Communists had no effect on the fabric of government and (to use the argument of Hitchens) the fact that Clinton could have been impeached for war crimes has no bearing at all on Rove's visions of 'Back To Basics'? If the ex-admin was lurched that far left, you can at least half the impact of what you think Rove is trying to say.
>>Rove, on the other hand, has REAL POWER to >>influence an all too pliable Dubya.
Since the House and Senate is so gridlocked that in this time of national emergency, certain Democrats still place the letter of the law over the spirit of it (Homeland Defence) and certain others want to ignore the war in the middle east and play class-warfare (Tax and Budget Stimulus) - do you really belive that in a time of peace the opposition parties (sorry PARTY) will just sit back and do nothing? If the Dems will keep playing party politics during wartime, there's just a chance they'll keep playing the same thing during peacetime.
With that said, GW has the option to play the 'Clinton Card' and put out executive orders left right and center. To some people, that kind of high-handed jiggery pokery is distasteful, but that might have been the only thing that kept Clinton in office as long as he was, that and a Republican held Congress HAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
How many million people didn't vote last time? Aren't they the ones who have the real solution for both parties? The only problem is that if this 'War on Terrorism' succeeds, then the law of averages says that a chunk of non-voters might actually come out and stick one on the mast for GW...the phrase "uphill struggle" comes to mind.
rms
R
rms
(view)
>>It's ridiculous equating the speech of Lee and >>Rove. Lee is an ultra-left winger whose views >>represent a tiny minority of Democrats.
Fair enough. But you seemed to miss the fact that Ron Dellums WAS the ranking Democrat who stated a wish to dismantle parts of the defences of the USA. Also, if certain commentators are anything to go by, Clinton could have dealt with Bin Laden after the embassy bombings but he chose to do NOTHING except for bombing a Sudanese asprin factory.
So are you saying that ranking Dems who consorted with Communists had no effect on the fabric of government and (to use the argument of Hitchens) the fact that Clinton could have been impeached for war crimes has no bearing at all on Rove's visions of 'Back To Basics'? If the ex-admin was lurched that far left, you can at least half the impact of what you think Rove is trying to say.
>>Rove, on the other hand, has REAL POWER to >>influence an all too pliable Dubya.
Since the House and Senate is so gridlocked that in this time of national emergency, certain Democrats still place the letter of the law over the spirit of it (Homeland Defence) and certain others want to ignore the war in the middle east and play class-warfare (Tax and Budget Stimulus) - do you really belive that in a time of peace the opposition parties (sorry PARTY) will just sit back and do nothing? If the Dems will keep playing party politics during wartime, there's just a chance they'll keep playing the same thing during peacetime.
With that said, GW has the option to play the 'Clinton Card' and put out executive orders left right and center. To some people, that kind of high-handed jiggery pokery is distasteful, but that might have been the only thing that kept Clinton in office as long as he was, that and a Republican held Congress HAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
How many million people didn't vote last time? Aren't they the ones who have the real solution for both parties? The only problem is that if this 'War on Terrorism' succeeds, then the law of averages says that a chunk of non-voters might actually come out and stick one on the mast for GW...the phrase "uphill struggle" comes to mind.
rms
Fair enough. But you seemed to miss the fact that Ron Dellums WAS the ranking Democrat who stated a wish to dismantle parts of the defences of the USA. Also, if certain commentators are anything to go by, Clinton could have dealt with Bin Laden after the embassy bombings but he chose to do NOTHING except for bombing a Sudanese asprin factory.
So are you saying that ranking Dems who consorted with Communists had no effect on the fabric of government and (to use the argument of Hitchens) the fact that Clinton could have been impeached for war crimes has no bearing at all on Rove's visions of 'Back To Basics'? If the ex-admin was lurched that far left, you can at least half the impact of what you think Rove is trying to say.
>>Rove, on the other hand, has REAL POWER to >>influence an all too pliable Dubya.
Since the House and Senate is so gridlocked that in this time of national emergency, certain Democrats still place the letter of the law over the spirit of it (Homeland Defence) and certain others want to ignore the war in the middle east and play class-warfare (Tax and Budget Stimulus) - do you really belive that in a time of peace the opposition parties (sorry PARTY) will just sit back and do nothing? If the Dems will keep playing party politics during wartime, there's just a chance they'll keep playing the same thing during peacetime.
With that said, GW has the option to play the 'Clinton Card' and put out executive orders left right and center. To some people, that kind of high-handed jiggery pokery is distasteful, but that might have been the only thing that kept Clinton in office as long as he was, that and a Republican held Congress HAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
How many million people didn't vote last time? Aren't they the ones who have the real solution for both parties? The only problem is that if this 'War on Terrorism' succeeds, then the law of averages says that a chunk of non-voters might actually come out and stick one on the mast for GW...the phrase "uphill struggle" comes to mind.
rms
posted 2001.12.14
posted on December 14th 2001
-
Your Thoughts? – Baerwald on December 11th, 2001-
Re: Your Thoughts? – eugene on December 17th, 2001
Re: Your Thoughts? – rms on December 13th, 2001-
Advice For A Dictator by Joseph Goebbels – Baerwald on December 14th, 2001-
Nazis vs. Conservatives – rms on December 16th, 2001-
Proper Ganders – Baerwald on December 16th, 2001-
Re: Proper Ganders – rms on December 17th, 2001-
Re: Proper Ganders – Baerwald on December 18th, 2001-
Re: Proper Ganders – rms on December 23rd, 2001-
Re: Proper Ganders – Andrea on December 23rd, 2001
Re: Proper Ganders – Kevin on December 16th, 2001
Springtime for Slanderers – rms on December 16th, 2001
Re: Advice For A Dictator by Joseph Goebbels – rms on December 14th, 2001
More Goebbels – Baerwald on December 20th, 2001-
Re: More Goebbels – mick on December 14th, 2001-
Yes, Virginia – Baerwald on December 15th, 2001
My thoughts in brief – Peter T. on December 13th, 2001-
Among the Gender-Benders – rms on December 16th, 2001-
Re: Among the Gender-Benders – Dan on December 17th, 2001-
Re: Among the Gender-Benders – rms on December 17th, 2001-
Florida – Andrea on December 19th, 2001-
Re: Florida – rms on January 2nd, 2002-
Re: Florida – Andrea on January 3rd, 2002
Re: Among the Gender-Benders – Dan on December 17th, 2001-
Re: Among the Gender-Benders – Kevin on December 17th, 2001-
Re: Among the Gender-Benders – Dan on December 17th, 2001-
Re: Among the Gender-Benders – rms on January 2nd, 2002-
Re: Among the Gender-Benders – Dan on January 2nd, 2002-
Re: Among the Gender-Benders – rms on January 14th, 2002
Re: Among the Gender-Benders – Kevin on December 17th, 2001
Re: My thoughts in brief – rms on December 14th, 2001
Re: Your Thoughts? – mick on December 13th, 2001-
Re: Your Thoughts? – rms on December 13th, 2001-
Your Thoughts are not your thoughts – mick on December 13th, 2001-
Re: Your Thoughts are not your thoughts – rms on December 13th, 2001-
Re: Your Thoughts are not your thoughts – mick on December 14th, 2001-
Re: Your Thoughts are not your thoughts – kravitz on December 16th, 2001-
Re: Your Thoughts are not your thoughts – rms on December 16th, 2001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
