What he said...

[laurence]

Actually, the key thing you said was 'majority'. - It is the requirement of a majority that makes mulitple parties a reality. Not the form of government. Today anyone with a plurality wins the election. Just change the election rules to require a majority and Wa La - You not only have 3rd parties, but 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. etc. etc. - just like in France. - The parlimentary system has nothing to do with it. It's the election rules.

This is Political Science 101 - Which I'm guessing you never took.

Why are you taking shots at me??

 

[bpp]

Colin Powell was the only guy in uniform to stand up to Clinton on homosexuals serving openly in the military.
[...]
I consider that Powell was wrong in doing so, but the man had the commitment to his convictions coupled with the ability to keep pushing (despite being able to retire to a life of luxury) and to forge a compromise (even though he could quit anytime he felt like it). Today the chain of command no longer has to feel obligated to persecute homosexuals (heck, now it's illegal) and the military is a lot closer to allowing homosexuals to serve openly. That progress wouldn't have occurred without Powell's efforts.

Wait a sec: without Powell's efforts, Clinton would have issued an executive order allowing homosexuals to serve openly to begin with. Powell's efforts slowed down progress -- they didn't help it.

As a former NSA Powell was certainly aware that the WMD intelligence had its flaws, and I'm pretty sure that he had a few forceful-backup comments on the subject, but again he chose to support the team when he could have just quit and walked off the stage.

So in this matter, it is a virtue for him to go along with something he knew was wrong, while in the former matter it was a virtue for him to stick to his (misguided) principles rather than cooperate with the administration?

After over 12 years of dealing with Hussein he knew it was time for the man to go. I don't like the way he used weasel words but I notice that Powell didn't go out of his way to support the intelligence after the war started.

He lied to us, and I believe he knew he was doing so. If he thought there were other, good reasons to go into Iraq, he should have focused on them.

I guess sometimes it is better to be a team player, and sometimes better to be the lone maverick. I am sure these are very hard decisions to make, but his having come down on (what I consider) the wrong sides of two issues that pissed me off mightily really reduces my willingness to support the guy.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

John Edwards can win. And is the only southern Democrat that will probably run.

An empty suit.

JG

 

[Cut-Throat]

Why are you taking shots at me??

I am not taking shots at you! - I'm only explaining the 3rd party thing. It is a fact that the reason we have 2 parties in the U.S is because we decide our elections based on plurality not majority. It is very simple, no conspiracies, no plots, just election rules. People always see 3rd parties as the solution. They should work hard to change our election rules.

It only irritates me because I was a student of Political Science and often hear that a third party candidate will fix all of our problems. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Gone4Good]

Quick overview of some of the Democratic message:
-- Energy independence
-- Retirement security
-- Protecting civil rights
-- Providing fair elections
-- Affordable health care
-- Protecting the environment
-- Preventing government corruption

If you see this as simply anti-Bush, I think it says more about you & Bush than it does about Democrats

Some of the things on this list reflect core Democratic priorities, but some are jokes . . . right?

Like:

-- "Energy Independence". Right, and they want to achieve that by coming out against nearly every economically feasible domestic energy project. (i.e. no drilling in Alaska, no drilling off-shore California or Florida, many are against building nukes, and burning coal, etc, etc.).

-- "Retirement Security" - you are joking right? What, exactly, did the Dems contribute to this last debate on reforming social security? We know they are against privatization, but what exactly did they come out in favor of?

-- "Providing Fair Elections" - with "fair elections" defined as "elections Democrats win?"

--"Preventing Government Corruption" - both parties are equal opportunity sleaze balls. Lets not forget Clinton's shady land deals and commodity futures; the 1996 DNC taking campaign contributions from China and Korea (talk about corruption?); Bob Torricellie's laundry list of scandals, Dan Rostenkowski's 17 count felony indictment, the Abscam bribery scandal resulting in the convictions of Harrison Williams, John Jenrette, Richard Kelly (Republican), Raymond Lederer, Michael Myers, Frank Tompson, and John Murphy, to name a few.

 

[Nords]

Wait a sec: without Powell's efforts, Clinton would have issued an executive order allowing homosexuals to serve openly to begin with. Powell's efforts slowed down progress -- they didn't help it.

If Truman integrated the armed forces in 1948, then why in the 1970s were we still putting ships out of action for racist incidents?

IMO there's a lack of appreciation for the military's homophobia. Powell did a lot to ease a transition that I think is necessary, let alone inevitable, instead of ramming it through with conflicts & incidents. It's not a question of whether or not we get there, just how many people get hurt or killed along the way. I think Powell put together a better solution than Clinton's mandate.

So in this matter, it is a virtue for him to go along with something he knew was wrong, while in the former matter it was a virtue for him to stick to his (misguided) principles rather than cooperate with the administration?
He lied to us, and I believe he knew he was doing so. If he thought there were other, good reasons to go into Iraq, he should have focused on them.
I guess sometimes it is better to be a team player, and sometimes better to be the lone maverick. I am sure these are very hard decisions to make, but his having come down on (what I consider) the wrong sides of two issues that pissed me off mightily really reduces my willingness to support the guy.

I don't know. I think he got told to come up with a better answer or to parrot the party line. I think he chose to stay in the game by parroting the party line instead of by resigning, a move that would have been even worse for the time and the administration. Like I said, I look forward to reading the history books...

 

[sgeeeee]

I don't have strong negative feelings about Colin Powell, but I really don't see what he's done that is impressive in any way. His resistance to Clinton on allowing gays to serve openly seems like pretty weak praise. I would have had a lot more respect for him if he had chosen to use his leadership position and reputation to step up to the military leaders and homophobes and said, "This is the right thing to do. This is what the comander in chief and the country believe is right. It is our duty to do this." Now that would have been leadership -- and more consistent with the role the military should play in political decisions.

While his role in the Bush-Cheny administration is not as reprehensible as Rumsfeld's or Rice's, he didn't stand up to GWB (like he did to Clinton over gays) when they chose to lie to the country about WMDs. He apparently felt like upholding the status quo on gay bashing was more important than stopping an unjustified invasion that has cost thousands their lives.

 

[bpp]

Hi Nords,

I like SG's reply in general; would just add the following:

I think he chose to stay in the game by parroting the party line instead of by resigning, a move that would have been even worse for the time and the administration.

As it turned out, he pretty much got blown off by the administration after this anyway, so he didn't really manage to stay in the game after all. Kind of sold his soul for nothing, seems like.

 

[astromeria]

"Energy Independence". Right, and they want to achieve that by coming out against nearly every economically feasible domestic energy project. (i.e. no drilling in Alaska, no drilling off-shore California or Florida, many are against building nukes, and burning coal, etc, etc.).

To some people, energy independence means more strip-mining of coal, windmills off every coastline, and pipeliens as far as the eye can see. To others, it means incentives for conservation and investing in new technologies. I suspect that as many Democrats support nuclear power as Republicans (maybe 1/3 to 1/2).

What, exactly, did the Dems contribute to this last debate on reforming social security? We know they are against privatization, but what exactly did they come out in favor of?

Raising the cap on income subject to SS taxes. Making sure that SS is there for the next generation (higher priority than, for example, invading and occupying other countries).

"Providing Fair Elections" - with "fair elections" defined as "elections Democrats win?"

Being much mroe skeptical about programmable voting machines, making sure that the have-less are provided as easy access to vote as the have-mores, checking the bizarre gerrymandering, for example, in Texas. (Yes I know that Democrats have been just as guilty of this--it has to stop!)

both parties are equal opportunity sleaze balls.

Yes...BUT. The Clintons made, what was it--$100,000 on one land deal? And what did Denny Hastert make on one of his own earmarks to put a highway alongside the land he'd recently bought--over $1,000,000 in profit. For the most part, it's a matter of scale.

 

[Leonidas]

Being much mroe skeptical about programmable voting machines, making sure that the have-less are provided as easy access to vote as the have-mores, checking the bizarre gerrymandering, for example, in Texas. (Yes I know that Democrats have been just as guilty of this--it has to stop!)

Voting machine security is an issue that needs to be resolved. I don't think anyone has proven that there has been fraud, but they have proven that it could be done and that is bad enough.

As for gerrymandering, the democrats have certainly done their share and I would be sympathetic to their cries of "foul" when the republicans did it in Texas, if I believed that their solution would be fair rather than just a return to drawing pro-democratic districts. When politicians, of either stripe, decide how to group the electorate it's just an invitation for corruption.

 

[haha]

John Edwards can win. And is the only southern Democrat that will probably run.

I am very disappointed to see that Mark Warner has ruled himself out as a candidate in 2008. He looks better than any possibility in either party.

Ha

 

[Alex]

I am very disappointed to see that Mark Warner has ruled himself out as a candidate in 2008. He looks better than any possibility in either party.

Ha

even more so, now that he is no longer an option.....I suspect this is posturing....

 

[Cut-Throat]

I'm looking for a "gag" emoticon. Moderators? Help me out here.

JG

Here you go! You just have to use right words.

Something like -

Ann Coulter

 

[youbet]

The Chicago Democrats will deliver a landslide victory for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 in Illinois, no matter who that candidate is. If the liberals who keep obcessing about who the candidate is and what the issues are would stop it and get the party organized in your state, there wouldn't be a non-Democratic victory anywhere again, ever.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Here you go! You just have to use right words.

Something like -

Ann Coulter

Now my feelings are really hurt. Good one!

JG

 

[samclem]

. . . It only irritates me because I was a student of Political Science and often hear that a third party candidate will fix all of our problems. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I beg to differ. Ralph Nader did the nation a great service in the 2000 election.