Certainly, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, et al is not an example of why that statement might carry any truth.

Germ War wrote:Certainly, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, et al is not an example of why that statement might carry any truth.

Certainly. Actually, that's what's made me really, really sick over the last few days. Congress tries to take action, and the Bush Administration once again proves that it is above the rules.

Additionally, it's hard to fight it in court, because neither side (Congress, Bushies) wants to define the limits of "executive privilege".

Minotaur029 wrote:The media is so fucking irresponsible.

Hence my cynicism in the run up to '08. If every Liberal news outlet wants to, they can make you believe that the Republicans are fucked. They have already lost. The Democrats just need to pick a candidate and show up. Job done. I mean, I read the dailykos same as everyone else but I also remember how they had me convinced of exactly the same thing in the run up to '04. Alas, they do not decide who wins the election. The Liberal media is read by people who are already going to be voting for the Democrats. It is literally preaching to the choir.

Remember that chances are you do not often associate yourself with the people who voted for Bush on two seperate occasions. Yes, everyone is fond of of saying he stole those elections but I think that's a moot point. If he did, then the next election will be stolen in the same way and it is therefore a formality. If he didn't, there is still work to be done. There is a chance that "everyone hates Bush" is true but that is besides the point. Bush isn't running. You cannot win an election on the grounds that people hate George W. Bush.

Anyone that thinks that people aren't going to vote Republican in this next election because of Bush is in dangerous territory. They are going to. I assure you. In their tens of millions.

iembalm wrote:When an openly gay president is elected I will consider it a step forward. For John T. Voter to support a gay Chief Executive when all his indoctrination pulls in the other direction will be the real (ahem) coup in this country.

Germ War wrote:We will have a female/minority/gay president long before we have a president who has a vested interested in the well-being of all of the citizens in our nation.

This thread didn't need to get past the first page.

The woman is the twice over first lady. The black guy is a senator. In my mind it would be harder for a black canidate to get elected than a white woman, especially in this case. For these reasons (and more?) I would rather see Obama win.

I think James Buchanan was gay

tommydski wrote:

Minotaur029 wrote:The media is so fucking irresponsible.

Hence my cynicism in the run up to '08. If every Liberal news outlet wants to, they can make you believe that the Republicans are fucked. They have already lost. The Democrats just need to pick a candidate and show up. Job done. I mean, I read the dailykos same as everyone else but I also remember how they had me convinced of exactly the same thing in the run up to '04. Alas, they do not decide who wins the election. The Liberal media is read by people who are already going to be voting for the Democrats. It is literally preaching to the choir.

Remember that chances are you do not often associate yourself with the people who voted for Bush on two seperate occasions. Yes, everyone is fond of of saying he stole those elections but I think that's a moot point. If he did, then the next election will be stolen in the same way and it is therefore a formality. If he didn't, there is still work to be done. There is a chance that "everyone hates Bush" is true but that is besides the point. Bush isn't running. You cannot win an election on the grounds that people hate George W. Bush.

Anyone that thinks that people aren't going to vote Republican in this next election because of Bush is in dangerous territory. They are going to. I assure you. In their tens of millions.

Dude, I'm telling you...don't worry. Even if Hillary gets the nomination, the Republicans are still probably fucked. I thought that Bush would win both elections...2000 and 2004 (when I was a kid, it was actually something I understood pretty well re: 2000...I've always paid close attention to politics [though I stopped being so open with my politics after the hopelessness that ensued after Bush's reelection]).

The Republicans have no appealing candidates. The Democratic base is energized and has outraised the Republicans (for a change) to a ridiculous degree.

Even so, any Democratic president just has to clean up Bush's mess anyway.

Rick Reuben wrote:

If viewers can't manage a simple boycott of advertisers that fund these lie machines, then they have failed a basic test of citizenship: vote with your dollars. Just like accepting only a Dem and a GOP candidate in the election- if you don't like either choice, you must reject both.

I do not concur. At the very least, I will reject the candidate with the most potential to stack the judicial branch with the kind of lockstep, politicized, underqualified cronies who will do everything in their power to perpetuate the social inequalities their corporate and religious masters exploit at the expense of the vulnerable and unempowered in this country.

Casting a vote is never "failing a basic test of citizenship." I know young people who subscribe to your political philosophy to the extent that they do not go to the polls at all, with the result that local ballot measures which carry minimum turnout requirements die regardless of the percentages. When I speak with people who wear their refusal to vote as a point of pride, I try to convince them of the importance of local citizenship, but they all fall back sheeplike on the "my vote doesn't matter because the system is corrupt" card, without the ability to respond meaningfully to any point I make. A boycott of the status quo and the basic privilege of voting, without sweat equity invested toward meaningful change, is simply giving away any leverage you might still have as a citizen.

A. Democrat. wrote:The Republicans have no appealing candidates.

Are you sure? Gulliani is a survivor. He also understands that all he has to do is run from a platform that says "If you vote Democrat, this country will return to the soft approach that caused the events that lead to 9/11. In my city, that I had to sort out because of that pansy Clintons negligence". Also, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are more electable than George W Bush by several miles.

A. Democrat. wrote:Even so, any Democratic president just has to clean up Bush's mess anyway.

He/She has to get elected first! That's the crucial part!

Marsupialized wrote:I think James Buchanan was gay

James or Pat?

tommydski wrote:

A. Democrat. wrote:The Republicans have no appealing candidates.

Are you sure? Gulliani is a survivor. He also understands that all he has to do is run from a platform that says "If you vote Democrat, this country will return to the soft approach that caused the events that lead to 9/11. In my city, that I had to sort out because of that pansy Clintons negligence". Also, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are more electable than George W Bush by several miles.

A. Democrat. wrote:Even so, any Democratic president just has to clean up Bush's mess anyway.

He/She has to get elected first! That's the crucial part!

Giuliani is a social liberal. This does NOT play well with the Republican base. This "the Democrats will cause another 9/11" talk has been done before...Bush, Cheney. Americans have largely wised up to such bullshit. Remember what Germ War was saying about the short American attention span? 9/11 was practically 6 years ago now...that's like 100 years in America.

By the way...did you hear that Lindsay Lohan got busted for driving drunk again??