The 2008 Elections

[Scott Gardener]

Albatross is well-said.

Already, Republicans are blaming the newly elected Democratic Congress for not fixing problems, when they've just barely started. Isn't that like wrecking a car, having it towed, and then upon arrival blaming the mechanic for not having it fixed already?

[Terastas]

I do believe Bush is content to let the war drag on until 2008, if only just so he will never have to admit that he made a mistake. It would be much more beneficial to his elitist friends to hand the whole disaster to a Democratic candidate and then blame them for the whole thing in 2012.

I also have no doubt we'll hear a lot about "Barack Osama" from Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and other Republican-sponsored meat puppets whose only job is to look like Nazis in comparison to the people they endorse. I can already tell he's the one the Bush Elitist Republicans are scared of.

Remember how the Republicans pushed Gennifer Flowers out into the spotlight before Bill Clinton had even won the Democratic primary? Their doing the same thing with Barack Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBcTyC9Naeg

For the record, not only did the Clinton campaign not leak information about Obama's past, but said information is not even true. Obama did spend some of his childhood in Indonesia, but attended a nonsecular school, not a "madrassa" that teaches violent Islam, and he was raised by a non-practicing Muslim father and a non-practicing Christian mother.

After everything Bush has done to poison the reputation of the United States and to turn the Republican Party into an Elitists-Only club, it will not surprise me if the Republicans can only come back into power by disbanding and coming back together under another name. The Republicans are running scared, the only Republicans that have a true chance of winning have turned against the Elitist system, and if the Democrats hope to have any chance of undoing the damage done to their foreign relations, the first thing they're going to have to do is put Bush and Cheney on trial.

This isn't the end of the United States, but I think five or six years from now, it's going to look very different.

[MattSullivan]

Obama won't be elected to the democratic nomination, Hillary will. In that case, i may vote Republican, but it has to be more centrist moderate candidate not aligned with the hardcore Christian right, like so many "so-called" Republicans these days.

[vrikasatma]

it will not surprise me if the Republicans can only come back into power by disbanding and coming back together under another name.

They're already doing that, the Libertarian Party started getting infiltrated by moderate Republicans when the Christian Right hijacked the party. The Libertarians are riddled with RINOs (Republican In Name Only). They're an odd breed: one could call them Constitution Conservatives who support a return to strict interpretation of the Constitution. Not a bad idea.

Lieberman has already come out saying that he'd support a Republican candidate. I'm tempted to call him a traitor but in truth, he was never a Democrat. Too authoritarian. When Gore chose him for a running mate, a lot of my environmentalist friends caught their breath and went white for a moment before sighing and saying, "Well...I'm still voting for Gore." Frankly I'm glad he bolted from the Democratic Party.

And if you really want the truth, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Gore doesn't run for the nomination because if he did, and got it, I'd be packing up my stuff and heading for Canada. Sure, he's got an okay environmental record but he's even more of a theocrat than Bush is. We'd see even more erosion of separation of church and state.

[MattSullivan]

I just hope all this identity madness splits up the two parties into MANY. For a country with 400 million people it just isnt right to have the elections dominated by...TWO parties.

[vrikasatma]

Word. I split from the Libertarian Party because —

a.) There'd never be a Libertarian President under the current system. The best we could hope for is a Libertarian Governor that durst not speak their Libertarian name (Jesse Ventura?)...

And b.) I was sick of hearing them talking about "sending a message" while the Dems stood on the other ear, snarling "Spoiler!" at us.

We'd have a better chance of getting a foreign-born Prez than a Libertarian or Green in the Oval Office. I still sigh over the fact that Madeleine Albright can't ever run.

[Terastas]

it will not surprise me if the Republicans can only come back into power by disbanding and coming back together under another name.

They're already doing that, the Libertarian Party started getting infiltrated by moderate Republicans when the Christian Right hijacked the party. The Libertarians are riddled with RINOs (Republican In Name Only). They're an odd breed: one could call them Constitution Conservatives who support a return to strict interpretation of the Constitution. Not a bad idea.

*nods* If I had to guess which third party would become the new Republican party, my first guess would have been the Reform Party. The Libertarians are a close second. Then the big debate will be between the Democratic Party and Libertarian/Reform Party (it won't surprise me if the two parties unify either) with the fundamentalist Republicans running on a joke of a third party.

Of course, inevitably the businessmen and fundamentalists will attempt to infiltrate and hijack another party just as they did the Republican Party, but inevitably the same thing will happen. The power of Democracy is based in the people, and while it's true that Americans can be very stupid, they're not nearly as stupid as Bush, Cheney etc. wish they were.

[Lukas]

the first thing they're going to have to do is put Bush and Cheney on trial.

wo wo wo, now dont you think tahts a bit extreme? i mean sure they stick at politics but they broke no laws requiring impeachment

[vrikasatma]

I'd say the New Orleans/Hurricane Katrina cleanup corruption scandal is an impeachable offense. Same with Abu Ghraib. That's beyond impeachable, that's throw 'em in irons and drag 'em before the World Court for breaking the Geneva Convention.

Also, Halliburton wasted American tax dollars bigtime. Wartime profiteering doesn't come close to it: they were doing things like scrapping whole semi trucks for nothing more than the trucks running out of oil, or blowing a tire. They also sent an unarmed civilian convoy of trucks, without so much as a map between them, into a live-fire red zone that Halliburton management knew was crawling with armed militias.

[Fang]

I must agree,Presidents have been Impeaced for a lot less than this

[Terastas]

Same with Abu Ghraib. That's beyond impeachable, that's throw 'em in irons and drag 'em before the World Court for breaking the Geneva Convention.

This is what I was thinking of.

You could argue that Bush/Cheney declared war for personal gain, committed grand scale manslaughter by ignoring the warnings about the New Orleans levees, or even that they were never a legitimate presidency to begin with, but the issue that outraged the rest of the world the most is also the easiest to prove them guilty of. The rest of the world hates America and wants to see Bush, Cheney etc. answer for their crimes, so the easiest way to patch things up with our foreign relations would be to beat the United Nations to it.

[MattSullivan]

Yeah. Clinton was impeached for being a man. A MAAAAAAAAANNNNNN!

Sorry girls, I know you who have been cheated on might not like my stance, but Bill made me PROUD of him. Proud! Getting siphoned in the Oval office, "smokin" a cigar and eating pizza? BRILLIANT!

BILL CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT 2008!!! ( screw term limits )

[Terastas]

I've always said that I thought Bill Clinton was an absolute genius because he had an affair with an intern.

*pause*

Because comedians like me need to work to you know. We look up to the President to screw up and provide us with material, and he found a way to do just that without screwing with our economy or foreign policy. That was a man that thought about everyone!

[Fang]

At least with Clinton you knew what was going on under the table

[MattSullivan]

LOL go fang go! :}

[Lukas]

I'd say the New Orleans/Hurricane Katrina cleanup corruption scandal is an impeachable offense. Same with Abu Ghraib. That's beyond impeachable, that's throw 'em in irons and drag 'em before the World Court for breaking the Geneva Convention.

Also, Halliburton wasted American tax dollars bigtime. Wartime profiteering doesn't come close to it: they were doing things like scrapping whole semi trucks for nothing more than the trucks running out of oil, or blowing a tire. They also sent an unarmed civilian convoy of trucks, without so much as a map between them, into a live-fire red zone that Halliburton management knew was crawling with armed militias.

first ill talk about he orleans/hurricane then, yes some of it is Bushes fault but your forgeting 1 key player, THE MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS! he failed to prepare for the hurricane, but instead kept tourist attractions open untel teh last moment, and what did he do when he was done ranting about bush? he moved to texas and bought a multi-million$ house with his wife, s

also i like to point out that alot and i mean alot of are presidents broke the geneva convention, WW2 we did some things we wernt proud of either, and the same goes for some of are other wars
now we all now wildrow wilson correct? will did you know he was extremly racist, did nothing for civil libertys, and during his term, stuck his knows into latin affairs more then any other president, he put troops in mexico 9 times! so now remember, Bush is a idiot and isnt doing so good, but we had presidents just as bad as him, so i suggest you look up your history of are country before you decide who deserves impeachment or not

(also as a note, its a common mythe that cliton was peached for the affiar but its not true, he was impeached for lieing to the american people publicly)

[vrikasatma]

Just like Nixon...and Bush lied about Iraq.

But we're not here to talk about impeachment, there's plenty of forums on the 'Net for that.

The thing is, yes, our government did some stuff through history that wasn't kosher, but we didn't draught the Geneva Convention until after WWII. Jefferson kept slaves, too. That was before the emancipation proclamation, and it was also because they had priorities. First priority of the revolution was to get out from under the British Crown, then we could free all the slaves we want for as long as we want.

That aside...

America is always talking about being the leader of the world. Personally I think there are other countries that are more qualified, Germany being one, Sweden being another, Spain wouldn't be bad either...

My beef was that Bush not only knew it flew in the face of the Geneva Convention, and everyone knows that torture is counterproductive at best and damned fool-headed at worst. We nailed that truism down five hundred years ago. Any psychologist will tell you that torture victims invariably lie, torture someone enough and they'll tell you any damn fool thing you want to hear, just to make it stop. Bush's own generals told him that it doesn't work. He not only ordered them to do it anyway, he legalized it. He legalized it because he's too arrogant to acknowledge that he screwed up and he wants to cover his a**.

Terrorists don't need a reason to torture and horrifically kill people but now, they have us to point at for legitimization. Ahhm, NO. This is not acceptable.

And don't bring up that argument of "What if you capture a terrorist and he knows where the bombs are, that are about to go off in thirty minutes?" No, I wouldn't give the nod to torture in that case either, I'd make a best guess that such-and-such radius from where we picked the terrorist up is where the bombs are and scramble trucks and soldiers to evacuate everyone from that sector. But torturing the terrorist wouldn't work. Even money he'd either lie or spit in our faces, and tell us nothing one way or another.

Meanwhile, his buddies in the bunker have kidnapped some of our boys and girls in battle, and are torturing them to death where we can't get them out. We can't say a thing, because as we know, we legalized torture. Making torture illegal causes unnecessary danger to our troops: I respect and support them.

Side-story: I went to see Pan's Labyrinth at the theatre today and there were a couple soldiers on leave in the line ahead of me. They wanted to see Epic Movie but didn't have enough for two tickets. I passed them the difference.

[Terastas]

first ill talk about he orleans/hurricane then, yes some of it is Bushes fault but your forgeting 1 key player, THE MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS! he failed to prepare for the hurricane, but instead kept tourist attractions open untel teh last moment, and what did he do when he was done ranting about bush? he moved to texas and bought a multi-million$ house with his wife, s

That doesn't exactly lessen what Bush did. Though the mayor did not handle the situation well, the destruction in New Orleans was the result of Bush's removal of funds from the levees. Though the mayor did a horrible job handling the disaster, the disaster itself was not his doing.

also i like to point out that alot and i mean alot of are presidents broke the geneva convention, WW2 we did some things we wernt proud of either, and the same goes for some of are other wars
now we all now wildrow wilson correct? will did you know he was extremly racist, did nothing for civil libertys, and during his term, stuck his knows into latin affairs more then any other president, he put troops in mexico 9 times! so now remember, Bush is a idiot and isnt doing so good, but we had presidents just as bad as him, so i suggest you look up your history of are country before you decide who deserves impeachment or not

As Vrikasatma already stated, Woodrow Wilson's presidency was pre-Geneva.

It would also not surprise me if other presidents still alive and available for trial oversaw criminal activities, but the dilemma concerning whatever crimes they may have committed is that we lack any evidence of such. I'm sure Richard Nixon wasn't the first president to set government agents on a personal agenda, but he was nearly impeached for such because he was caught.

In the case of George W. Bush, we not only have the evidence that Bush is in violation of international law, since he went as far as to legalize it, the evidence is way out there where everyone can see it. It would be an insult to the international community if the next presidential regime did not do anything about it.

Back on the election, my money's still on Obama. Edwards may be the front runner in Iowa, but in all seriousness, the Iowa caucus should not be a big deal. A caucus is when the party members themselves -- not the registered voters -- decide who they are going to nominate; it's the most primitive form of democracy our country has to offer. The primaries, I believe, will tell a very different story.

[Lukas]

its not looking good for obama, a poll was taken and clinton has 44% of the democratic vote while obama only has 15%

[Terastas]

its not looking good for obama, a poll was taken and clinton has 44% of the democratic vote while obama only has 15%

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that a race with so many candidates could be that one-sided in representation. I've seen others that ranked Clinton behind both Edwards and Obama, but I don't particularly trust the source of such.

Right now we're still waiting on the results of the Iowa Caucus, and as I said before, that matters very little in the long run. Once the primaries are underway, you will see a drastic change in the percentages.

[vrikasatma]

I'll take any. They all have their good points.

[vrikasatma]

[Terastas]

I'll weigh in on Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos. Him doing that was despicable but when he said that a riot at the Democratic Convention in Denver would be the best thing to happen to this country, and that his listeners should see to it that it happens, he crossed the line. The First Amendment doesn't cover that kind of speech and it'd almost be worth it for the chance to see a federal lockup's floors painted red with him. We do have some numbers: in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, the vote went to Hillary because of dittoheads crossing party lines to vote for her.

As I said a long time ago, Limbaugh is a Republican meat puppet. I never took him seriously, but his Operation Chaos followed by his calls for Republicans to try and intentionally start a riot, I would even go as far to consider that treason: A deliberate attempt to undermine our very system of government. It's funny when you intentionally vote for someone you don't like on American Idol, but when you carry that logic over to a vote that is meant to determine the future of our nation, that is crossing the line several times over.
McCain meanwhile is turning out to be just as scary as Bush ever was, but. . . Well, at least he isn't Romney.

I wouldn't worry too much about the racism card though. Like I said when this thread began, most people are only closet racists; people that are only afraid of minorities but try to cover it up and don't actually harbor any deep-seated hatred of them. Both of my parents are like that, but they're also more afraid of McCain than they've ever been of any heavily-tattooed black man.

And the people that do hate minorities enough that they would want Barack killed, well, most of them are going to be too drunk or lazy to go out and vote on election night anyway. McCain will probably take the Bible Belt, but everywhere else in the country, he's going to be a hard sell.

[Howlitzer]

This dilemma is quite easy for me, really.

I don't discriminate, I hate everyone, modern politics (on BOTH sides) sucks and keeps things from getting done, the media (in general) is evil, Hillary is the antichrist, Obama is a very slick phony, McCain scares me a bit, Romney....well he was Romney.

It has gotten to the point where if I were to meet a person that was a politician by career, not on the side, I would slap them.

There, nuff said.

[vrikasatma]

I'm not even sure about the Bible Belt. He'll probably draw his generation throughout all the States; people who don't want to be perceived as "not supporting the troops." Purely speculation, but that's where I think his demographic is.

Did you see the crowd when he gave his speech (the infamous "Carrying bottles of hot water to dehydrated babies" speech) on the Montana/South Dakota primary night? Two hundred people from Kenner, LA, who weren't even clear on when they should applaud or boo. They wound up booing him in a couple spots. Even Faux News agreed the whole affair was a joke; as for Jeffrey Toobin on CNN, he verbally ripped him a new one.

The fact is, and I personally know several cases, is that Barack is drawing moderate Republicans into his camp. We had Reagan Democrats but how long has it been since Republicans hewed towards a Democratic candidate, <i>sincerely</i>? I do not count Operation Chaos.

Speaking of that...yes, the incitement to riot in Denver could come under maybe not treason, but sedition. At the very least, Rush is guilty of election tampering and corruption of the political process.