Democrats for President Bush!

[DudeMan]

It is nice to see that there are at least a few reasonable and sensible Democrats left.

Zell Miller is a Democrat in the tradition of Sam Nunn and Scoop Jackson. He has these crazy notions that being a Democrat isn't incompatible with being strong on defense and security, and keeping taxes down. I hope the party powers listen to him, because I fear the Democrats are turning their backs on the positive steps President Clinton took them in, namely free trade and restrained spending. Go Zell!!

(This is from today's Wall Street Journal, and I'll re-print the text since it requires a subscription to log into their website)
------------------

George Bush vs. the Naive Nine

By ZELL MILLER

If I live and breathe, and if -- as Hank Williams used to say -- the creek don't rise, in 2004 this Democrat will do something I didn't do in 2000, I will vote for George W. Bush for president.

I have come to believe that George Bush is the right man in the right place at the right time. And that's a pretty big mouthful coming from a lifelong Democrat who first voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate the 12 cycles since then. My political history to the contrary, this was the easiest decision I think I've ever made in deciding who to support. For I believe the next five years will determine the kind of world my four grandchildren and four great-grandchildren will live in. I simply cannot entrust that crucial decision to any one of the current group of Democratic presidential candidates.

Why George Bush? First, the personal; then, the political.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together, and I just plain like the man, a man who feeds his dogs first thing every morning, has Larry Gatlin sing in the White House, and knows what is meant by the term "hitting behind the runner."

I am moved by the reverence and tenderness he shows the first lady and the unabashed love he has for his parents and his daughters.

I admire this man of faith who has lived that line in that old hymn, "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see." I like the fact that he's the same on Saturday night as he is on Sunday morning. And I like a man who shows respect for others by starting meetings on time.

That's the personal. Now, the political.

This is a president who understands the price of freedom. He understands that leaders throughout history often have had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom. And the choice they make can reverberate for generations to come. This is a president who has some Churchill in him and who does not flinch when the going gets tough. This is a president who can make a decision and does not suffer from "paralysis analysis." This is a president who can look America in the eye and say on Iraq, "We're not leaving." And you know he means it.

This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can't gobble it up.

I have just described George W. Bush.

Believe me, I looked hard at the other choices. And what I saw was that the Democratic candidates who want to be president in the worst way are running for office in the worst way. Look closely, there's not much difference among them. I can't say there's "not a dime's worth of difference" because there's actually billions of dollars' worth of difference among them. Some want to raise our taxes a trillion, while the others want to raise our taxes by several hundred billion. But, make no mistake, they all want to raise our taxes. They also, to varying degrees, want us to quit and get out of Iraq. They don't want us to stay the course in this fight between tyranny and freedom. This is our best chance to change the course of history in the Middle East. So I cannot vote for a candidate who wants us to cut and run with our shirttails at half-mast.

I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign -- the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost -- with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign -- watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country.

So, as I have said, my choice for president was an easy decision. And my own party's candidates made it even easier.

[drexel dave]

he sounds like an idiot.

[Duemellon]

It is nice to see that there are at least a few reasonable and sensible Democrats left. nah, you aren't trying to incite a party-fight, are you?He understands that leaders throughout history often have had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom. And the choice they make can reverberate for generations to come. good & evil? "Good?, Bad?, I'm the one with the gun"

It's all about perspectives, a real diplomat understands that while a brutish barbarous warmonger has the compassion of a lion towards a wounded gazelle.This is a president who has some Churchill in him and who does not flinch when the going gets tough. so help me if that bastard started this "fight" and pulled out now he'd be a rotting schmuck hung over a rusty nail. I don't like what he did, and only the lowest of lowly filth would leave it in dissarray now. He doesn't get credit for doing what he's supposed to. It'd be like thanking your radio for having sound come out of it's speaker.This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. yeah b/c of the tax cuts we aren't looking for an additional $87billion for the war, or ways to stimulate the econ which still is only moving in certain areas in a lathergic and cautious fashion. I'm so glad that tax cut for families & children went out,... that helped me sooooo much.

Of course us single & unchildrened-people would have more money to spend on consumables than those with perpetual responsibilities. But nevermind that, I'm unimportant b/c I haven't bred.So I cannot vote for a candidate who wants us to cut and run with our shirttails at half-mast. you tell me which rat-bastard is saying we should cut & run and I'll berate them at every opportune moment.

[drexel dave]

Bush showed his real colors when he deserted the Texas Air National Guard for a year.

I wouldn't follow him down the street to pick up free lottery scratch offs, let alone into a battle.

[WalterSobchak]

Originally posted by DudeMan
...and restrained spending.

Damn those Dems and their 87 billion.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by Duemellon
"Good?, Bad?, I'm the one with the gun"

Due, like a blue moon or a winning Bengals season, some things just don't come around very often, and thus should be duly noted. So, I feel it an obligation to point out when you say something I appreciate!

I loves me my Army of Darkness, yo!

[Docta]

Originally posted by drexel dave
he sounds like an idiot.

he is, and sean hannity looked as if he were ready to felate this old codger in hannity's "exclusive" interview, like anyone else wants to hear his ramblings. miller had no answer as to why he has not switched parties only to say that he was born and raised democrat. every issue imagineable he is conservative to the f'n bone.

[drexel dave]

I heard him on Hanity today, and boy is he an idiot. He trys to be all homespun and shit, but he's as big of an insider as anyone. What a total phoney.

I wonder what lobbying gig he's shooting for?

[DudeMan]

Yeah he's an idiot alright. He's such an idiot that he's one of the dwindling number of Democrats who can still win a majority in the south. If the democratic nominee runs on raising taxes and turning our back on Iraq next year, that will pretty much guarantee 4 more years of President Bush.

But hey, don't say you haven't been warned! Respond to internal criticism with defensiveness and hauteur if you will, but unless something is done to stop this leftward lurch, President Bush will begin to take on the aura of inevitability:

Edited to add: Dammit, I guess this pic I tried to post was timed-out, as Frost so archly points out. Too bad, 'cause it's a great picture!

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031014/capt.cdh10110140027.topix_bush_cdh101.jpg

[RichmondVA]

Dudeman, what are you smoking? I mean I know you're conservative and I can dig that but every once in a while you post something that just mystifies me.

I mean, if you are a conservative or you like the dude or whatever, you can maybe give reasons why the deficit is so high. Or you can try to come up with some whacky dynamic scoring measure that knocks his defict down from number one with a bullet to maybe only number 4 or 5 of all time. Or you can flat out say you don't care about the deficit or spending (like most of America). But what you can't do is show how Bush is exercising spending restraint. Because he isn't.

He hasn't vetoed or even really strongly opposed a single spending bill this year, including $400 billion for Medicare. Bush shattered papa's deficit record this year. He's also doubled his deficit from last year, and he's going up into the $500 billion mark next year. Clinton was ringing up $100 billion dollar surpluses. Even the Cato Institute and the Center for Policy Analysis are saying Bush is pretty weak in the spending area.

There's two things you got right. Zell Miller is a Democrat in the tradition of Sam Nunn. Meaning he's a Republican in everything but name. Second, Zell Miller is a smart man. Even if he disagreed with Bush, he knows he's screwed if he doesn't back him.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
Second, Zell Miller is a smart man. Even if he disagreed with Bush, he knows he's screwed if he doesn't back him.

I thought Miller wasn't running for reelection, so he wouldn't really be put-out in any way to oppose Bush......

[RichmondVA]

Yeah he's retiring after the next term. Which means he can now afford to piss on his party with impunity. Once you aren't in formal office it's more about who your friends are than your party affiliation, and his powerful friends back Bush.

Although to say that he's doing it solely for selfish reasons is unfair. He's been criticizing the Dems for some time now and he's always voted Republican. He's certainly not betraying anyone or being a hypocrite.

It's just that knowing Zell Miller, the fact that he's a Democrat supporting Bush has absolutely no effect on my opinion. Technically he's a Democrat, but I don't agree with anything he stands for. And I vote on the issues, not the party. In the same way you and Dudeman didn't change your opinions on Clinton just because Chafee said positive things.

And even Zell Milller didn't say Bush exercised restraint in spending. :p

[tobedawg]

My question regarding this article: How much more can a single individual scratch George W Bush's balls??

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
Dudeman, what are you smoking? I mean I know you're conservative and I can dig that but every once in a while you post something that just mystifies me.

I mean, if you are a conservative or you like the dude or whatever, you can maybe give reasons why the deficit is so high...
RVA, well sure, he's not restraining spending all that much. And although I'd love to cut the hell out of spending, it's a matter of priorities: a) we are challenged with a security/terror issue that takes first priority. b) Bush believes that long-term economic growth can best be achieved through the stimulative effect of tax cuts.

Setting aside for the moment whether he's doing the right thing with either a. or b. above, those are his two primary priorities. The 'price' of both of those priorities is that he must in the shorter run accept higher spending. He's a big-government conservative, or at least he's accepting of big-government as a means to achieve his ends. For accepting spending in areas of defense & security he wants, he has to accept spending in other areas to get votes he needs. And to drive through tax cuts, he has to accept spending in other areas to get the votes he needs. It's called politics, my dear RVA, and that's how it works.

I don't worry about the deficit all that much. It's not remarkably high in historical terms as a % of GDP, and it will begin to ease as the economy picks up.

-------------------------
And Tobedog: I am assuming that is a rhetorical question and you aren't endeavoring to find out for yourself! :eek:

[supra-genius]

Originally posted by drexel dave
I wonder what lobbying gig he's shooting for?

Being from the South, I would say tobacco, but with his tongue strategically placed in Shrub's colon, its either oil or DOD contractors.

[Juliana]

Originally posted by DudeMan
knows what is meant by the term "hitting behind the runner."


Good thing I'm not eligible to run yet. I have no idea what that means.

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by DudeMan
b) Bush believes that long-term economic growth can best be achieved through the stimulative effect of tax cuts.

So, you're telling us he's an idiot. I thought you were for him?

[RichmondVA]

So you're saying that despite the fact that he has a friendly Congress and despite the fact that no one is really battling him on the military spending he wants, he STILL has to approve all of Congress's spending bills. And if he wants tax cuts, he has to approve spending. So basically no matter how much Bush spends, it's not his fault. :rolleyes:

Clinton rang up surpluses when Congress was trying to impeach him. So obviously it's possible to curb spending and balance the budget even when you don't have as much pull as Bush does.

So now we're supposed to back Bush because of his handling of Iraq and tax cuts? What's that got to do with free trade or restrained spending?

I fear the Democrats are turning their backs on the positive steps President Clinton took them in, namely free trade and restrained spending.

well sure, he's not restraining spending all that much

whoops.

[DudeMan]

The responses to Zell Miller's op-ed here are telling. Attack him personally, attack his motives, call him an idiot, call Bush an idiot, etc. But whatever you do, don't address the substance behind what he's saying -- the leftward drift of the democratic party is putting them in danger of being the minority party for years to come, much as the republicans were for 50 years before that.

It's a shame, but like I said, it's telling. I would really like to see two strong parties, energetic and brimming with ideas. Today we have one such party and the other one is sitting on the sideline crying foul instead of getting into the game in a meaninful way.

[GWB]

Originally posted by drexel dave
he sounds like an idiot.

Nah Dave, if he were an idiot, he would get his ass over to http://www.drexellent.com

BTW, who's the ugly bitch with the big head?:D

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by DudeMan
The responses to Zell Miller's op-ed here are telling. Attack him personally, attack his motives, call him an idiot, call Bush an idiot, etc. But whatever you do, don't address the substance behind what he's saying -- the leftward drift of the democratic party is putting them in danger of being the minority party for years to come, much as the republicans were for 50 years before that.

If that'll in any way make you less smug, it'll be worth every minute of my time.

George Bush vs. the Naive Nine

By ZELL MILLER

If I live and breathe, and if -- as Hank Williams used to say -- the creek don't rise, in 2004 this Democrat will do something I didn't do in 2000, I will vote for George W. Bush for president.

I have come to believe that George Bush is the right man in the right place at the right time. And that's a pretty big mouthful coming from a lifelong Democrat who first voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate the 12 cycles since then. My political history to the contrary, this was the easiest decision I think I've ever made in deciding who to support. For I believe the next five years will determine the kind of world my four grandchildren and four great-grandchildren will live in. I simply cannot entrust that crucial decision to any one of the current group of Democratic presidential candidates.

This is all introduction and opinion.

Why George Bush? First, the personal; then, the political.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together, and I just plain like the man, a man who feeds his dogs first thing every morning, has Larry Gatlin sing in the White House, and knows what is meant by the term "hitting behind the runner."

So, he owned a baseball team and he likes country music? Whooptee doo.

I am moved by the reverence and tenderness he shows the first lady and the unabashed love he has for his parents and his daughters.

He loves his daughters so much, they're out of control underage drinkers. Good parenting job, GW!

I admire this man of faith who has lived that line in that old hymn, "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see." I like the fact that he's the same on Saturday night as he is on Sunday morning. And I like a man who shows respect for others by starting meetings on time.

Read: I like the fact that he goes to church. Because we here on the religious right are better than everyone else. Heathens! Yeah, he shows respect for all those kids by cutting education spending. He must really respect all the American people by lying to us about going to war in Iraq. Lying, lying... where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, every other president in history.


That's the personal. Now, the political.

This is a president who understands the price of freedom. He understands that leaders throughout history often have had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom. And the choice they make can reverberate for generations to come. This is a president who has some Churchill in him and who does not flinch when the going gets tough. This is a president who can make a decision and does not suffer from "paralysis analysis." This is a president who can look America in the eye and say on Iraq, "We're not leaving." And you know he means it.

Yeah, we've been in Iraq for about 8 months. We're in it for the long haul! It's been real long so far, eh? I think what he means is "we're in it as long as it's politically and financially profitable for me and all of my friends... then we're out like RuPaul." If he understands the price of freedom so well, then why are we only meddling in Iraq? Lots of other countries flounder under repressive dictatorships. What about North Korea? Let's kick their ass too! Oh, yeah, sorry... Iraq's got all the oil. Never mind.


This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can't gobble it up.

Is he high? What is "deficit spending" then?

I have just described George W. Bush.

Believe me, I looked hard at the other choices. And what I saw was that the Democratic candidates who want to be president in the worst way are running for office in the worst way. Look closely, there's not much difference among them. I can't say there's "not a dime's worth of difference" because there's actually billions of dollars' worth of difference among them. Some want to raise our taxes a trillion, while the others want to raise our taxes by several hundred billion. But, make no mistake, they all want to raise our taxes. They also, to varying degrees, want us to quit and get out of Iraq. They don't want us to stay the course in this fight between tyranny and freedom. This is our best chance to change the course of history in the Middle East. So I cannot vote for a candidate who wants us to cut and run with our shirttails at half-mast.

Read: I'm jealous that I never quite was strong enough to run, now I'm too old. And when I say "raise taxes", what I really mean is "roll back the ridiculous tax cuts given to the inordinately wealthy and try to help the middle class keep up with the ever increasing profiteering sensibility of today's business world." And when I say "they want us to quit and get out of Iraq", I mean "they value peaceful resolutions to all foreign policy matters when practical, and desire the Iraqi people to determine their own future rather than have it dictated by an overseas imperialist hand and would rather keep a dictatorship in place than overthrow it by illegal and ethically improper means." Implying that Democratic candidates don't value freedom is just ridiculous rhetoric that makes Miller sound even more and more pandering to the right as time wears on.

I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign -- the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost -- with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign -- watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country.

Read: maybe I'd support a Democrat if it looks like they'll win. Come back and talk to me in 6 months so I can tell you why Howard Dean is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So, as I have said, my choice for president was an easy decision. And my own party's candidates made it even easier.

Read: I am really a Republican, but this last statement makes me look open-minded and intelligent.

[lawdog]

Originally posted by DudeMan
The responses to Zell Miller's op-ed here are telling. Attack him personally, attack his motives, call him an idiot, call Bush an idiot, etc. But whatever you do, don't address the substance behind what he's saying...

All right, sir!



George Bush vs. the Naive Nine

By ZELL MILLER

If I live and breathe, and if -- as Hank Williams used to say -- the creek don't rise, in 2004 this Democrat will do something I didn't do in 2000, I will vote for George W. Bush for president.

I have come to believe that George Bush is the right man in the right place at the right time. And that's a pretty big mouthful coming from a lifelong Democrat who first voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate the 12 cycles since then. My political history to the contrary, this was the easiest decision I think I've ever made in deciding who to support. For I believe the next five years will determine the kind of world my four grandchildren and four great-grandchildren will live in. I simply cannot entrust that crucial decision to any one of the current group of Democratic presidential candidates.

Okay…so there’s not really any substance to address thus far…


Why George Bush? First, the personal; then, the political.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together, and I just plain like the man, a man who feeds his dogs first thing every morning, has Larry Gatlin sing in the White House, and knows what is meant by the term "hitting behind the runner."


Huh!? Where is the substance? He feeds his fargin' dogs? Certainly that's a good thing, but how is that...um...what’s the word? Oh, yes, relevant. I don't know what kinds of pets any of the Dems have, but I assume even the utterly unelectable Kucinich and Moseley-Braun aren't cruelly letting their pets starve. And that other stuff--sheesh. More of the usual portrayal of Bush as "good ole boy." Bush has lead a life of unimaginable privilege, and has opportunities handed to him that most would kill to have. What we have here is more myth-making of Bush as Washington outsider.


I am moved by the reverence and tenderness he shows the first lady and the unabashed love he has for his parents and his daughters.

I admire this man of faith who has lived that line in that old hymn, "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see." I like the fact that he's the same on Saturday night as he is on Sunday morning. And I like a man who shows respect for others by starting meetings on time.

That's the personal. Now, the political.

Whew! I hope there's more here. All of the above is nice, but in no way qualifies one to be president. Even Saddam Hussein seemed to show some affection towards his family.


This is a president who understands the price of freedom. He understands that leaders throughout history often have had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom. And the choice they make can reverberate for generations to come. This is a president who has some Churchill in him and who does not flinch when the going gets tough. This is a president who can make a decision and does not suffer from "paralysis analysis." This is a president who can look America in the eye and say on Iraq, "We're not leaving." And you know he means it.


Okey Dokey. Let's begin with the alleged fact that "This is a president who understands the price of freedom." Does he? I wonder on what basis that statement was made? At the very least, there is unassailable evidence that when young men his age were being sent to Vietnam, young Bush made it into the Texas Air National Guard, leapfrogging thousands of applicants with much higher scores. Even if the number of applicants wasn't swelled by the war, it's questionable whether Bush's scores would have qualified him for flight training. Fortunately for young Bush (and unfortunately for the ones who went to fight in his place), the Silver Spoon prominently jutting from his inarticulate mouth was worth more than a few points on the final tally.

As I said, at the very least, that's what occurred. There is also some evidence that Bush did not even bother to fulfill his committment to the National Guard. Some dispute this claim, though, but it really doesn't matter, because the paragraph preceding it is true. Bush chickened out of Vietnam.

I know, I know, so did a certain other recent president, one whose affinity for cigars and slumpbusters is well documented, and I personally do not believe that distinguished military service is a necessary prerequisite for being President of the United States. But to allege that you will vote for the Cowardly Texan next year over whoever the democrats nominate because he "understands the price of freedom" strains believability. Does Wesley Clark--who was wounded in combat and continued to fight--not understand the price of freedom? Does John Kerry, also a Veteran, not understand it?


"He understands that leaders throughout history often have had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom."

Lovely. But the problem is that Bush seems to view everything through such a dichotomic lens. To Bush, things are either good or evil, when in fact they rarely fit into such precise categories. Along the same lines, but even more infuriating, is the arrogance that derives from this inability to see shades of gray. In the months leading up to the Iraq war, Bush's attitude towards other nations and the UN could be summed up as "you're either with us or you're against us." He alienated many countries through his simplistic attitude and unwillingness to comprimise.

Even more sickening is the way Bush and the administration played this same attitude at home, suggesting that anyone dissenting from their views was on the side of the terrorists. I think most Americans realize that the choices are not always so black and white. My own life isn't that simple, and I imagine the dilemmas facing the POTUS are of greater import than those facing me. Another Bush myth is that of moral clarity, and it is one that the Democrats must dismantle.

The outing of Valerie Plame is illustrative of Bush's decisiveness in choosing between good and evil. The felon who revealed her name to Bob Novak (and several other journalists) could only come from a very small group within his administration. It was an act that may well have put her in danger, as well as may have endangered our national security. It was also a callous, cowardly and evil act. If he truly possessed the moral clarity that the WSJ would have us believe he does, he could have gotten to the bottom of this, and quickly. Instead, he dragged his feet, and waited for the CIA to insist upon an investigation (which is being conducted by Ashcroft's justice department).

And don't even get me started on the manner in which Saudi Arabia was mollycoddled in the aftermath of 9/11...


This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can't gobble it up.

I have just described George W. Bush.

Believe me, I looked hard at the other choices. And what I saw was that the Democratic candidates who want to be president in the worst way are running for office in the worst way. Look closely, there's not much difference among them. I can't say there's "not a dime's worth of difference" because there's actually billions of dollars' worth of difference among them. Some want to raise our taxes a trillion, while the others want to raise our taxes by several hundred billion. But, make no mistake, they all want to raise our taxes.



Ye gads! Tax cuts which even the administration's rosiest estimates say will put us in enormous deficits for as far out as they're willing to predict, coupled with enormous spending for the unneccessary and dishonestly marketed war in Iraq, are now being touted as sound fiscal policy! I didn't really get what Joshua Micah Marshall meant by his phrase "up is downism," but I think this qualifies. As for whether taxpayers deserve the cuts or not is a matter of opinon, but regardless of that, the Bush tax cuts are grossly irresponsible. Right now our country is like a college student living large off of five credit cards. If we don't get the deficit under control very soon (which will require tax hikes), then we're (or, more accurately, our children are) going to be in for a rude awakening when the bill comes due.

to be continued...

[lawdog]

continued


They also, to varying degrees, want us to quit and get out of Iraq. They don't want us to stay the course in this fight between tyranny and freedom. This is our best chance to change the course of history in the Middle East. So I cannot vote for a candidate who wants us to cut and run with our shirttails at half-mast.

I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign -- the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost -- with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign -- watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country.

So, as I have said, my choice for president was an easy decision. And my own party's candidates made it even easier. [/B]

Now Miller has transitioned from hyperbole and half truths into bald-faced lies. First, it foolish to suggest that the nation is faced with only two options in Iraq: to cut and run, or to continue the president's failing policy. Which gives rise to Miller's lie. I defy him to show me one example of a frontrunning Democratic candidate saying that we should just turn tail and run in Iraq (or, since Miller is probably not reading this, I guess one of the forum's resident conservatives could do so).

Here's an interesting suggestion from former NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski (the full text of his speech is here (http://www.centerforamericanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?cid={E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}&bin_id={9F92BF4B-1E80-45E3-AFC8-F1672CFC4A4C)):


In Iraq we must succeed. Failure is not an option. But once we say that we have to ask ourselves what is the definition of success? More killing, more repression, more effective counter-insurgency, the introduction of newer devices of technological type to crush the resistance or whatever one wishes to call it — the terrorism?

Or is it a deliberate effort to promote by using force a political solution? And if there's going to be a political solution in Iraq, clearly I think it is obvious that two prerequisites have to be fulfilled as rapidly as feasible namely the internationalization of the foreign presence in Iraq regarding which too much time has been lost and which is going to be increasingly difficult to accomplish in spite of the somewhat dialectical successes with which we are defining progress in Iraq lately. (Laughter)

In addition to the internationalization of Iraq we have to transfer power as soon as is possible to a sovereign Iraqi authority. Sovereignty is a word that is used often but it has really no specific meaning. Sovereignty today is nominal. Any number of countries that are sovereign are sovereign only nominally and relatively. Ultimately even the United States is not fully sovereign as we go around asking for more men and money to help us in Iraq.

Therefore there's nothing to be lost in prematurely declaring the Iraqi authority as sovereign if it helps it to gain political legitimacy in a country which is searching to define itself, which has been humiliated, in which there is a great deal of ambivalence, welcoming on the one hand the overthrow of Saddam as the majority does, and on the other hand resenting our presence and our domination.

The sooner we do that the more likely is an Iraqi authority under an international umbrella that becomes itself more effective in dealing with the residual terrorism and opposition that we continue to confront. We will not understand what is happening right now in Iraq by analogies to Vietnam because I think they are all together misplaced, and one could speak at length about it.


And that's very similar to what many Dems are saying. We've got to internationalize the process, and we've got to transfer power. No one wants to run away with our tails between our legs, but you're not going to see any of the "Naive Nine" saying "Bring 'em on" in a press conference either.

Oh, one more thing...

Originally posted by DudeMan
The responses to Zell Miller's op-ed here are telling. Attack him personally, attack his motives, call him an idiot, call Bush an idiot, etc. But whatever you do, don't address the substance behind what he's saying -- the leftward drift of the democratic party is putting them in danger of being the minority party for years to come, much as the republicans were for 50 years before that.


I'm not so sure about that. I think the Democratic party may have shifted slightly to the left, but its shift looks more dramatic when viewed against the dramatic rightward shift of the Republican party under Bush. Bush has governed far to the right of where he ran. While this has pleased donors on the religious right, I wonder if he will be able to shift back to the center enough to pick up important swing votes next fall.

That is a topic for another day, though.

[lawdog]

BTW, DudeMan, although I rarely agree with you on political matters, you do seem to be someone with a good dose of intellect, and someone who reads coverage from both sides, which makes me suspect that you posted this article not because you thought it was a solid piece of work, but just to get us liberals riled.

[DudeMan]

Nice Lawdog!

And yeah there is a pot-stirring element behind my posting this, as it's occassionally fun to see people get bent out of shape despite themselves. But, I also very much agree with what he's saying.

Just as President Clinton really found his political feet after the GOP took control of congress in 1/95 (remember how low his approval ratings were then? They rose dramatically once he was forced to became a counter-puncher), so too would Bush and the country be better off if there were a strong, positive and realistic alternative-voice that he had to pay closer attention to. But I don't see that happening with the current leftward drift we're seeing in the democrat ranks these days.

That said, you have restored my faith in the loyal and intelligent opposition. Good times.

[lawdog]

Originally posted by DudeMan
But I don't see that happening with the current leftward drift we're seeing in the democrat ranks these days.


Well, I think you're right that the Dems aren't punching (counterpunching?), but I'm still not so sure it's leftward drift. I do get what you're saying, though.

I'm glad I restored your faith. Next time, though, can we do this on a Saturday? I don't always have to time to rant like that at work.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by lawdog
I'm glad I restored your faith. Next time, though, can we do this on a Saturday? I don't always have to time to rant like that at work.
No way! Much better to get paid to post here than do it on our free time.

[RichmondVA]

What leftward drift are you talking about? I mean, sure if you're Zell Miller Democrat from the 50's, the party has gone seriously off course and it's not coming back. There are no more boll weevil Democrats. They've been replaced by Republicans. But the Democrats aren't drifting left at all. The mood of the country is conservative right now, and the Dems are being sucked into the current. They're drifting right, unfortunately in a meandering and uncontrolled manner.

As for the intelligent alternative-voice, you'd first have to show me what that voice might be. Then maybe I'll let you know who might serve. Frankly, you can't find an intelligent alternative for Bush because for you there is no intelligent counter for Bush. You pretty much whole-heartedly approve of everything he's done. Really the deficit and free trade are two of Bush's weaker issues (though that still has no bearing on the article.)

We've already addressed Bush's spending and you find nothing wrong with it. As for free trade, Bush has talked a good game and I do believe he's tried. He's certainly got some American corporate voices worried. But really nothing much has come out of it. South America hates us, we snubbed our European allies, and we're being forced to play favorites with odd countries because of the mideast situation (Bahrain?). It makes it hard for Bush to do anything of great significance there.

Given your views, the alternatives are: you agree with Bush, or you're wrong. So of course there aren't any acceptable alternatives. Miller certainly doesn't qualify. He's always been conservative. He's been sniping at the Democrats for years now, in an increasingly vociferous manner. And if you agree with Bush, you're not really much of an alternative really.

I guess for you the fact that Miller is a Democrat might have some significance. But I've never agreed with anything he says and still don't. For most of us, it's like "Guy who likes Bush reaffirms in a not-so-detailed or hard-hitting article that he still likes Bush." Big deal.

[DudeMan]

Okay RVA, I'll tackle a few of these. Damn, I have never posted in one thread this much. I may have to go into semi-retirement after this, as it's wearing me down.
What leftward drift are you talking about?.... They're drifting right, unfortunately in a meandering and uncontrolled manner.
Anti-free trade. Filibustering judicial nominees in an unprecedented fashion rather than allowing a straight up-or-down vote. Holding up the Homeland Security Bill because they were beholden to the public-sector unions, which ultimately cost them at least two senators -- Cleland and Carnahan. Campaigning on raising taxes across-the-board, where Bill Clinton ran on a middle-class tax cut. Becoming beholden to liberal special interest groups, which makes them unappealing and unelectable across broad swaths of the south. Etc.


As for the intelligent alternative-voice, you'd first have to show me what that voice might be. Then maybe I'll let you know who might serve. Frankly, you can't find an intelligent alternative for Bush because for you there is no intelligent counter for Bush. You pretty much whole-heartedly approve of everything he's done.
I'm also looking for an intelligent alternative voice, so I'll let you know if I ever see one. The voice of the opposition is all about being anti-bush instead of being for-anything.

And no, I don't wholeheartedly agree with everything President Bush has done. Don't ascribe views to me, please. I am in favor of gay marriage. I don't particularly like Ashcroft. If it were up to me I'd cut govt spending by 5% of GDP minimum. I think he should fight harder for judicial nominees. I was against steel tariffs. Etc. But, taken as a whole, sure, his views, policies and record are better than any other electable national candidate out there.


We've already addressed Bush's spending and you find nothing wrong with it. As for free trade, Bush has talked a good game and I do believe he's tried. He's certainly got some American corporate voices worried. But really nothing much has come out of it. South America hates us, we snubbed our European allies, and we're being forced to play favorites with odd countries because of the mideast situation (Bahrain?). It makes it hard for Bush to do anything of great significance there.

Uh, I never said I find nothing wrong with government spending. I just said I understand that President Bush has priorities and the political cost of those priorities is higher spending. And besides, spending under any of the democratic candidates would be even higher, so there is no one to the right of Bush on spending.

South America doesn't speak as one voice, so you can't say they "hate us". Nor does Europe. Spain, Britain, Poland and Italy (among others) were behind us, and Germany and France and a few others turned their back on us at a crucial juncture.


Given your views, the alternatives are: you agree with Bush, or you're wrong. So of course there aren't any acceptable alternatives.
I never said that, nor do I believe it.


I guess for you the fact that Miller is a Democrat might have some significance. But I've never agreed with anything he says and still don't.
You've never agreed with *ANYTHING* Miller says or has ever said? Did you vote for Clinton? Miller gave a ringing endorsement of him and his candidacy in 1992 when he was Georgia Governor, and then campaigned for Gore in 2000. So, unless you voted for Bush Pere and then Dole and then Bush fils, and opposed each and every other policy he ever endoresed, that's a pretty sweeping statement from you, and I doubt it's true.

[yoshomon]

Theses of Bush and such

1.

Bush is not a conservative.

2.

Bush's take on social issues are a sham.

3.

Electoral politics are a bigger sham.

4.

It doesn't matter whether bureaucrats/politicians are idiots or not.

5.

I really wish the ACLU, NRA, and Catholic church had armed front-groups.

[Duemellon]

The voice of the opposition is all about being anti-bush instead of being for-anything. ah yeas... that's where it comes in... right there... did you guys see it? i did.

If you're against "x" you're against Bush.

it's automatic. I can't say I'm upset about the tax bonus ppl are getting b/c they got kids w/o someone saying I'm "Bush-bashing".

A knock against the US is a knock against Bush. B/c Bush long since drew that moral line in the sand that said "Either you're for us, or against us." and b/c he's THE ONLY POLICY MAKER IN THE U.S. and the only governing body that MAKES OR ALLOWS DECISIONS TO BE MADE REGARDING NEW LAWS AND TAXES he's the only one we disagree with.

Sure, the president doesn't have any direct power over new national taxes... and sure he doesn't have the sole authority to declare war... and sure he doesn't make fiscal policy...

but when you say it's bad you're talking about "mah' man! G dub-ya Beeeeeeeeeeyooooooosh!"

Or, in the REAL world as viewed by MOST people in disagreement with Bush it could possibly, on a far chance, have the opportunity, if luck would have it, and all the planets were aligned in such a way that prophecy may have said it could happen that ...

they just don't like the entirety of the administration.

but that's just wierd-o talk.

[yvette7ica]

Originally posted by DudeMan
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031014/capt.cdh10110140027.topix_bush_cdh101.jpg

I love this picture!!! WTF!!! I nearly peed my pants laughing so hard the first time I saw it.

Edited to add: I forgot to use the new word I learned: Dixiecrat. Z. Miller sounds like he's a Dixiecrat.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by DudeMan
Anti-free trade. Filibustering judicial nominees in an unprecedented fashion rather than allowing a straight up-or-down vote. Holding up the Homeland Security Bill because they were beholden to the public-sector unions. Becoming beholden to liberal special interest groups, which makes them unappealing and unelectable across broad swaths of the south. Etc.


Free trade: red herring. It's never been a right or a left issue. Both sides have particular parties they want us to trade with and for particular reasons. Certain liberals don't want to trade with China because of human rights violations. Certain conservatives won't trade because they're commies. Clinton by-and-large was pro free trade and made some inroads there but it was more him than Democrats in general.

tax cut: Things have changed. When Clinton lowered taxes, he ran a surplus whereas Bush is running a huge deficit. Big difference. I think it's entirely consistent (according to traditional economics) to say, "hey if you're going to run up a huge deficit, you need to take in more cash to address it"

South: The religious right has steam-rolled everyone, moderate Republicans along with Democrats. The hotly contested elections are primaries involving long-standing moderate Republicans vs. more right wing Republcans. Democrats haven't drifted anywhere-- they've simply disappeared.

Homeland Security: I think it's a crappy bill and I think MANY Americans, including my dad who is conservative feel the same way. But yeah, the Democrats should have raised a bigger stink when some of that stuff was originally proposed during the Clinton years. It was more a case of that sliding in under the radar as there were bigger issues at hand. But since they are raising hell over it now and weren't a few years ago, that's a bit of a shift. I tend to view it as coming to their senses. :p

I don't mean to accuse you of being a blind Bush follower. I think you've thought it over and you really believe that what he is doing makes a whole lot of sense. But I think you believe so strongly that you are a bit blind when you look at the other side. You can disagree with liberal views, but when somehow everyone that disagrees with Bush isn't just mistaken but actually evil I have to question your objectivity.

ALL politicians are largely beholden to special interest groups. And pretty much all politicians are about being anti-opponent as opposed to proposing their own plans. Why you think this is unique to Democrats is beyond me.

I happen to be pro-gay marriage, against the use of religious prayer and icons in school, anti-death penalty, and against mandatory sentencing. I think it's fair to say that those have been traditionally liberal issues. And I felt that way before Bush took office and I don't think I'm beholden to special interest groups.

BTW, I didn't vote for Gore. I voted for Clinton but my support of him is lukewarm at best. There were candidates on both sides in the primaries I liked better each election. In a vacuum, I suppose I agree with Miller's stance on fillibusters and I *think* he was in favor of tax credits for alternative fuel source cars, but even then my reasons are different than his. umm, we both like baseball. Does that count?

yvette7ica-- Zell Miller is a classic Dixiecrat aka Boll Weevil. Maybe the last one left. Be careful how you use it because it has some not-so-nice connotations.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
yvette7ica-- Zell Miller is a classic Dixiecrat aka Boll Weevil. Maybe the last one left. Be careful how you use it because it has some not-so-nice connotations.

Isn't Howard Dean a Dixiecrat?

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," Dean said Friday in a telephone interview from New Hampshire.


http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22649906.html

:D

[onest2.0]

That line has been a part of Dean's speeches for a while now. I don't know why its becoming a big deal now, maybe because the GOP is finally taking him seriously as an opponent (Dems too). I take it to mean "Hey rednecks, what are you getting out of all this Bush lovin'? You're still poor!!" and I think that's how Jesse Jackson understood it as well.

[GWB]

Originally posted by onest2.0
I don't know why its becoming a big deal now, maybe because the GOP is finally taking him seriously as an opponent (Dems too).

The only Republicans that are taking him seriously are.......well......nobody really. I tell ya, I get more entertainment out of watching the liberals beat each other to death than I do watching WWE RAW! That really says something about that because I really like WWE RAW!

[RichmondVA]

In my graduate program (in Public Policy, no less) someone gave a presentation referencing "Patrick Leahy (Lee-hay), urban Senator from Vermont." Vermont is every bit as urban as it is Southern. So sure, Howard Dean's a Dixiecrat!

oh, and one more thing that's really getting my goat. Max Cleland was pretty conservative. In fact, he might actually have been the alternative counter to Bush that Dudeman is looking for. He voted for, and I think even sponsored a Homeland Security Bill not too radically different from Bush's. But of course he made the mistake of voting against Bush's version and also criticizing the war.

So the Republicans ran a smear campaign calling him a traitor and ran him out of town. What Chambliss did to Cleland was absolutely despicable.

Sure, maybe Cleland was "beholden to special interest groups." It's certainly possible. I guess it's just the fancy-pants liberal in me that when I see a guy that lost not one, not two, but THREE count 'em THREE limbs in a war-- I kinda think that guy might have a reason for being against a war besides PAC money.

So now you know what happens to alternative voices.

[Zoot]

I really don't find a ton of substance in this excerpt from Brzezinski -

"In Iraq we must succeed. Failure is not an option. But once we say that we have to ask ourselves what is the definition of success? More killing, more repression, more effective counter-insurgency, the introduction of newer devices of technological type to crush the resistance or whatever one wishes to call it — the terrorism?

Or is it a deliberate effort to promote by using force a political solution? And if there's going to be a political solution in Iraq, clearly I think it is obvious that two prerequisites have to be fulfilled as rapidly as feasible namely the internationalization of the foreign presence in Iraq regarding which too much time has been lost and which is going to be increasingly difficult to accomplish in spite of the somewhat dialectical successes with which we are defining progress in Iraq lately. (Laughter)

In addition to the internationalization of Iraq we have to transfer power as soon as is possible to a sovereign Iraqi authority. Sovereignty is a word that is used often but it has really no specific meaning. Sovereignty today is nominal. Any number of countries that are sovereign are sovereign only nominally and relatively. Ultimately even the United States is not fully sovereign as we go around asking for more men and money to help us in Iraq.

Therefore there's nothing to be lost in prematurely declaring the Iraqi authority as sovereign if it helps it to gain political legitimacy in a country which is searching to define itself, which has been humiliated, in which there is a great deal of ambivalence, welcoming on the one hand the overthrow of Saddam as the majority does, and on the other hand resenting our presence and our domination.

The sooner we do that the more likely is an Iraqi authority under an international umbrella that becomes itself more effective in dealing with the residual terrorism and opposition that we continue to confront. We will not understand what is happening right now in Iraq by analogies to Vietnam because I think they are all together misplaced, and one could speak at length about it. "





Sure, there are lots of impressive words commonly used by intellectuals. But, I think that internationalizing the Iraq effort and handing over phony premature sovereignty are nothing more than talking points for those who want to oppose Bush's policies.

The enemies in Iraq, and in the war on terror, don't give a shit about how broad of a coalition there is in Iraq. It means nothing. These people blew up Red Crescent stations, the U.N. compound, etc. The enemy of the terrorists is modern civilization itself. Whoever asserts modernism is the enemy.

Handing over sovereignty to Iraqis right now would be an empty gesture. How can a country's people enjoy sovereignty when a completely dominant foreign power has thousands of troops and tanks and such roaming around? They can't. From what I've seen the Iraqi people are glad that the Americans are there, but don't want them around forever. We are not too far into this, after all.

We aren't in this to gain the approval of European elites.


The biggest fear among Iraqis is that we will leave them before the "bastards" are defeated to the point to where the decent everyday Iraqis could handle them. This is a simple and terrible test of wills that we can't shrink from.



Zoot



I would like to hear why internationalizing the Iraq effort would make a difference.

[solomon]

This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can't gobble it up.

That's not really true. One of their favorite things to do with debt is just monetize it and print up some new bills or pull some levers on their Gigantic Counterfeiting Machine to pay for it. Either way, that value eventually comes out of everyone's pocket.

We've already addressed Bush's spending and you find nothing wrong with it.

There is absolutely absolutely NO EXCUSE for Bush's spending. None. He's raised spending pretty much all across the board by huge amounts, not just military related. The idea that any "small government conservative" could really support him makes me scratch my head and wonder.

Sol

[yvette7ica]

Originally posted by solomon
The idea that any "small government conservative" could really support him makes me scratch my head and wonder.

I've been wondering the same thing.