Daily Kos

Sunday Talk Shows

by Jamato

Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:11:58 PM PDT

Update [2005-2-19 19:11:58 by Armando]: From the diaries by Armando. You're on your own tomorrow. AGG is out and since Lawrence Summers is sure to come up, I think I better stay out of it. Heh

Meet The Press
Sens. John McCain, R-AZ, & Hillary Clinton, D-NY, on Iraq. Plus, a roundtable with Katty Kay, Andrea Mitchell, Dana Priest & Robin Wright.

Face The Nation
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Republican - South Carolina
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
Democrat - New York

This Week
An exclusive interview with former senator and Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards
Also, Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial Iraqi Shiite once allied with the Pentagon, who hopes to become the country's next prime minister.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY
vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Sens. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

LATE EDITION (CNN)
Former Presidents George H. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Foreign Relations committee
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Foreign Relations committee

Let us know what's going on!

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 76 comments

  •  Wow...that's actually (none / 0)

    balanced.

    "The way the loser loses will determine whether the winner wins in November." -- Rahm Emanuel

    by Newsie8200 on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:00:41 PM PDT

    •  You're right. (none / 1)

      They're going to make up for it next week with 7 Republicans and Lieberman.

      by Desroko on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:13:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  LOL!! Then Clinton and McCain trip as they move (4.00 / 2)

        7 Republicans and Lieberman...LOL..good one.

        Of course, Hillary is moving so far center and sometimes right of center, perhaps she will meet McCain coming and going. Can you see it, he moves center, she moves center, they bump into each other,,she moves right, he moves left...then she moves left, he moves right..and once again bump into each other...\
        Neither McCain or Hillary are coming off as sincere and real..not in the least.
        They are too busy putting their toe in the water to test the temperature and then sailing in the direction of the wind current till it changes, then they back around again and head in another direction.

        The one thing we know about the McCain campaign...is that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

        by wishingwell on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:34:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Brilliant! (none / 0)

          I'm still shaking my head over Clinton's brilliant plan to not set a timetable for pulling out of Iraq, because, uh, what was it again?  Yeah, like we're going to pull out in the middle of the night to trick the terrorists.  I'm sure the insurgents wouldn't see that as a win.

          I think my logic circuits are blown.

          Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

          by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:19:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  um . . . (none / 0)

      . . . I suppose.  If having only one person (Edwards) out of several who isn't totally dedicated to maintaining the status quo and protecting the dominant financial and corporate institutions of the nation is balanced, then I suppose we should be happy.

      I apologize if I offend - I know this blog is concerned primarily with the Party rather than with ideology or philosophy, but I think we should think twice about using the word "balance."  If anyone can find a sharp, fundamental difference between McCain and Clinton - I mean on their basic understanding of power, of America's role in the world, and on what needs to be done domestically - I would love to hear it.  They are both moderate Rebublicans, yes?

      "While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free." - Eugene Debs

      by matthewc on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:55:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  MTP (3.66 / 3)

    Russert:  So are you President?

    McCain:  Who are you talking to?

    Russert:  Both of you.

    Clinton:  Now Tim, I have no intention..

    Russert:  Yes or no?

    McCain:  Ah.. I'm busy focusing on..

    Russert:  So YES?  YOU GUYS ARE BOTH RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?!

    The road to hell is paved with Good Intentions.

    by JenAtlanta on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:04:06 PM PDT

  •  Dean vs. Perle (none / 0)

    Tonight 8pm on C-Span.

    White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 6/07)

    by nolalily on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:12:18 PM PDT

  •  McCain and Clinton (none / 1)

    Who likes "vanilla"? Behold! two party loyalists tip-toe on the center!

    Should be riveting.

    alsonotreally

    "If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you."

    by McBokonon on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:15:25 PM PDT

  •  Why do I not like (none / 0)

    George Stephanopolis?

    How much time will be allotted to Gannon story, I wonder.

    by jane 2000 on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:15:28 PM PDT

  •  hmmm (none / 0)

    finally, when Dems seem to be showing a spine, the talk shows seem to be pretty balanced.

    by jj32 on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:17:27 PM PDT

  •   I will watch This Week (none / 0)

    For the exclusive interview with John Edwards, a man who is not moving to the center or moving anywhere but staying true to his beliefs and principles even if he is not in office at this time.
    Speaking of which, where in the World is Al Gore..we could use him on these programs to speak about Social Security..we need his lock box more than ever !!! Al Bring us the Lock Box back!!!!
    Al was strong on the Social Security issue, he is strongest on economic issues, I have found him to be an economic, budget genius, myself

    The one thing we know about the McCain campaign...is that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

    by wishingwell on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:23:42 PM PDT

  •  Meet the $1200/hr "Escorts" (none / 0)

    "Then, in a special "Meet the Press" roundtable, Dana Priest and Robin Wright of the Washington Post, the BBC's Katty Kay, and NBC's Andrea Mitchell will share their insights and analysis on the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism and the nomination of John Negroponte as the nation's first Director of National Intelligence."

    Apparantly "Meet the Press" doesn't include meeting any of the members of the press who may happen to have once been gay hookers.

    Intelligent Designer Laments Lapse in Intelligence

    by mrblifil on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:25:06 PM PDT

  •  Wonder if Papa Bush or Big Dog will... (none / 0)

    talk about other issues as I suppose they are apparing to talk about Tsunami relief and what is happening on that front. I wonder if they will veer off into different sectors, I doubt that. I am guessing Mrs. Clinton will be doing that instead on her  news talk show appearances.

    The one thing we know about the McCain campaign...is that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

    by wishingwell on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:26:29 PM PDT

  •  Ugh... (none / 0)

    Hillary Clinton, D-NY, on Iraq

    Why not put Lieberman there as well so you can have a bigger across the board "we Heart the invasion" panel.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:33:48 PM PDT

  •  We'll I'll be darned (none / 1)

    no Biden, the bullet was silver afterall, a Sunday with certainly some but definitely less BS.
    Have a great Sunday America!
    PEACE!

    by PC on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:50:38 PM PDT

  •  I hate Andrea Mitchell (none / 1)

    by skipper2379 on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 05:01:16 PM PDT

  •  why is always the same people on these damn shows? (none / 1)

    I mean would it hurt them to talk to a governor occasionally (besides Richardson) or maybe about something other than Iraq and social security?  I realize those are important issues, but it gets boring hearing the same party talking points over and over again...how about a little origniality..  

    I vote for people, not parties

    by Dont Tread on Me on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 05:07:59 PM PDT

  •  Um... (3.50 / 2)

    ...am I on crack, or was Chalabi discovered to have completely snowed certain geniuses in the gov't and to have passed intelligence to Iran? How is it that we continue to see him on prominent parade everywhere?

    by Mad AZ Monk on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 05:34:37 PM PDT

  •  Chalabi (4.00 / 2)

    has about as much a chance of becoming Iraqi PM as my cat becoming US President. About as qualified too.

    Barack Obama for President

    by Aexia on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 06:31:32 PM PDT

  •  "Big Al's" Wife (none / 0)

    My disappointment in the media and its adoption of a milquetoast role (Tim Russert included) is large enough and annoying enough.  But what troubles me even more is the growing evidence - and correct me if I'm wrong (like I've got to write that) - of a Bush lean among more and more television journalists who are allegedly non-partisan.

    In my humble opinion one of the most transparent is Andrea Mitchell.  I don't know if her being Al Greenspan's mate has anything to do with it, but I have watched and listened to her as her profile elevated during the campaign via her increasingly frequent "Hardball" appearances.  

    The most recent was her gushing review of W's State of the Union address followed by her somewhat toady review of Stepford Laura's activities.  

    Not far behind Ms. Mitchell is the just-a-little-too-smug Norah O'Donnell.  

    Is it just me?

    by Context648 on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 07:52:07 PM PDT

  •  AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH !!! (none / 0)

    How many times do I have to put up with Democrats allowing the right wing media to smearing them and keeping them shackled at minority status ?!?!?!?!? And of all the people, I'm angry as HELL that Hillary is allowing the media to keep on suggesting that she'll run for president because if she does, the media and GOP will smear the Democratic Party at its worst and it won't matter which friggin' repug runs for office because they'll get a free ride just like Bush has and continues to get from the media. Yes, even Newt Gingrich will win if the Dems continue to allow this smearing from GOP and media. The time wasted making themselves bigger laughing stocks would be better spent understanding the real meaning of what voters truly want in both red states and blue states !

    by MT Democrat for Kerry on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:00:32 PM PDT

  •  Hillary v.McClain (4.00 / 3)

        Come on gang, take a deep breath. Hillary isn't my cup of tea either, but Lieberman, she's not. The deal is, the local and network news clips that'll show her and NcCain will give them equal time, and she's plenty savvy enough to make sure hers is different in tone and substance.
         Fair's fair. You can't bitch about how Dems get shut out and then complain if a big star on your side uses her star power.
          Don't like what she says? Call an aide! She's walking a tightrope, push her in your direction.

    by JMG on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:41:10 PM PDT

  •  Biden (none / 0)

    Joe Biden was on the season premiere of "Real Time with Bill Maher" Friday evening. Too bad Robin Williams never shut his damn mouth.

    by Inconspicuous on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 10:35:24 PM PDT

    •  Biden was good (none / 0)

      I hope other Dems will adopt his talking points.

      Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

      by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:23:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Robin Williams (none / 0)

      As much as I like Biden, I can hear him do a serious interview on any tv show. Robin Williams was brilliant. I normally can't stand him when he does weird interviews that don't make any sense, but they tend to be when he's promoting a movie. He made the entire panel laugh over and over again and even made Bill Maher actually stop talking a few times because he couldn't stop laughing. I felt bad for Tommy Thompson, who barely said anything. Don Cheadle was on for two minutes and said more than Thompson.

      I'd go into it more but I know it's already been diaried.

      Now I'm not one for torture, but this rendition is extraordinary.

      by kbse matt on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 11:14:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Candorville satirizes the Sunday talkies (4.00 / 2)

    Candorville, Feb. 20.  It's in the WaPo comics section.

    "This week's hot topic - the President's plan to privatize Social Security.

    "Representing the right, we have a member of the President's cabinet, who will repeat the party line over and over again, no matter what I ask.

    "Also representing the right will be two Republican Congressmen, a Republican Senator, and Rudy Giuliani.

    "Representing the left, we have some inarticulate psycho we found living at the local YMCA."

    Yeah, that about covers it.

    by RT on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:11:40 AM PDT

  •  Halfway point (none / 0)

    on Meet the Press.  No Gannon yet?

    Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

    by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:32:00 AM PDT

  •  McCain and Clinton Ironic (none / 1)

    Both were saying that Bush should advise Putin that he has made a number of mistakes lately.  Bush should also tell Putin to beware of isolating himself from the international community. I'm not sure Bush is the one to be advising Putin.

    by azindy on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:46:18 AM PDT

  •  tim' angels (none / 0)

    noone seems to have noticed that the roundtable on meet the tim was all female. i doubt its coincidental.

    by dratfink on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:55:32 AM PDT

  •  No Gannon (none / 0)

    on MTP at all.

    Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

    by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:00:08 AM PDT

  •  Is it just me (none / 0)

    or is John Edwards kind of dodgy on This Week?  Why not answer whether he would or wouldn't confirm Rice?  Geez.

    Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

    by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:09:30 AM PDT

  •  Richard Clarke (none / 1)

    It's great to see Richard Clarke on this show.  Plus, he's patiently tearing George Will a new one!

    Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

    by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:34:42 AM PDT

  •  This Week with George S. (none / 0)

    First, the show aired exclusive clips of  the Wead audiotape of Bush conversations. Bush basically mocked Al Gore's revelation that he used marijuana and imitated Gore saying that he had used drugs in the past. His nastiness just showed through in the tapes!! Ish!!

    Then George S. had an interview with John Edwards, where JE first talked about his work with the Poverty Center in NC. GS then went on to ask JE about whether he missed being in the Senate (JE did); whether he would have voted for Condi Rice (JE refused to answer the question). I was disappointed with the interview quite frankly. I don't think that GS was that tough with him. I just wish that Edwards would have answered the questions better. For instance, I thought that JE fumbled the question how religion played an important part in his daily life. Apparently he said in a local newspaper (Charlotte?) after the election like many of the other Washington insiders that Dems needed to talk more about moral values and how faith influences their decisions. George S. gave him an opportunity to expound upon that further and John E. basically kept repeating himself and saying that his relationship with the Lord was important and that it dictated how he made his daily decisions. I think he should have answered the question by providing examples. I also didn't like how he evaded the Condi Rice question. He basically said that one of the good things about not being in the Senate was that he didn't have to vote on every issue and refused to answer the question. I think that he would have been better served if he had stated strongly and forcefully that he would have voted against Condi b/c of the intelligence failures under her leadership in the NSC. He also evaded George S' question about making another run in '08 and whether he would make a similiar commitment as Lieberman made to Gore to not run for president if Kerry chose to run. I expected him not to answer that question. So I don't have a beef with his non-answer.

    All in all, I thought that Edwards could have given a more candid interview. I'm sad to say that I just didn't get much new information from him. I voted for him in the MD primaries, even though by that time, Kerry had practically won the nomination b/c I liked what he said about poverty. I really wished that he had been more reflective about the Kerry/Edwards' loss in November and maybe even set an outsiders' tone to his interview, since he's been out of the Senate for a few months. Maybe he'll take the outsider's mantle in another year or two? I don't know. I was just really disappointed in the interview.

    The Chalabai interview was the same ol' same ol'. He said that the insurgents were getting weaker. Blah, blah, blah!!

    Richard Clarke was on the panel with George Will and Faheed Z.(?). Clarke made some good points about dirty bombs in the beginning of the discussion.

    Overall, an ok This Week. Probably the best part was the panel in the middle of the program.

    by ademption on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:48:41 AM PDT

    •  Richard Clarke was the highlight (none / 0)

      Plus I always like Fareed Zakaria.  I was extremely disappointed in John Edwards.  Too much God talk and not much else to say.  Why wouldn't he say how he would have voted on Condi?  What does he have to lose now?  I didn't get it.  Nothing on Gannon.  That was disappointing.  I would like to see Richard Clarke on more shows.  He very calmly took apart George Will until he was a quivering mass of jello.

      Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

      by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:52:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No Gannon? (none / 0)

    Have any of the Sunday shows covered Gannon?  I haven't seen anything on Meet the Press or This Week.

    Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

    by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:49:02 AM PDT

  •  Russert asks Clinton and McCain (4.00 / 2)

    if they're running for president; everybody has a good laugh; then he asks each if the other would make a good president; each says the other would, much laughter, everybody's enjoying themselves, this is all so humorous because we all know how important we are and we're all shameless whores.  Sickening.

    by bdbd on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:55:32 AM PDT

  •  Chalabi playing both sides... (none / 0)

    I'm listening to him and trying to look at him...and he's completely playing both sides. What a self-interested self-important creepy creepy man. -concerned iraqi-american

    by liminal on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:25:56 AM PDT

  •  John Arivos is on Reliable Sources right now (none / 0)

    He was asked the first question & framed the Gannon story perfectly.  Larger issue - access to President, "was he a plant?"

    Conservative blog - "gay baiting" "outrageous"  "The idea Jeff Gannon is not a real reporter - what is a real reporter?"  Helen Thomas is partisan - Democrats want the press corp to be 100% gay.

    John - is this was Clinton, there would be outrage.

    John McCain loves big oil!

    by aimeeinkc on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:31:57 AM PDT

    •  asdf (none / 0)

      Media Specialist - "you should have some sort of credability to cover the White House & Gannon didn't."

      Arivos - "Dan Rather's mistakes brought him down.  White House let Gannon in, we need to know the White House mistakes."

      Conservative Guy - "Eason Jordan, MSM blew the story.  Taken by surprise when forced out by CNN.  Bloggers brought to light what he did & said.  He repeatedly made accusations against military.  To blame the bloggers is ridiculous."

      Media Specialist - "as journalist, the idea to incorporate as much communication as possible.  Mass communication is good.  Different than MSM b/c there is only a certain amount of information you can provide.  Blogs can give as much information as possible."

      Atrivos - able to get story by being a good journalist.  

      Conservative Guy - able to get information on Rather all came from readers.  Some had to do with typography, contents of documents, his role is to sift through it & figure out what was reliable.

      Media Specialist - bloggers will check each other.  

      John McCain loves big oil!

      by aimeeinkc on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:37:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Arivos absolutely kicked Howie's ASS! (none / 1)

      Can I get another Amen? (Amen!) There's a flag wrapped around a score of men (Hey!) A gag, a plastic bag on a monument

      by iowasteele on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:17:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Did I hear right? (none / 0)

    Did Sen Graham on Face the Nation jsut say the National Guard and Reservists do not have access to military health care?

    by azindy on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:39:24 AM PDT

    •  and did I hear Graham say.. (none / 0)

      that he wished the UN would quit focusing on our mistakes (referring to the war) and that he wished they would focus on the benefit a democracy in Iraq would have on the world?

      "mistake" ???  I'm shocked.  Which is it - WMD or a mistake?  

      I shouldn't be so cynical, I guess.  I should be glad he said it, right?

      Blogging locally, acting globally 4&20 blackbirds

      by jhwygirl on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:05:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fox News Watch last night (none / 0)

    Usually I think FNW is the fairest and most balanced show on Fox.  Last night the Gannon story didn't even come up.  

    Carrie French, age 19, died in Iraq on June 5, 2005. Why?

    by Susan S on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:43:25 AM PDT

    •  Um (none / 0)

      The first two words in your subject headline give me the willies. You watch that? Most fair and balaned on Faux? Isn't that like picking your favorite cancer? Just a thought. No disrespect intended. I admire your intestinal fortitude.

      Whatever it is, I'm against it.

      John McCain - Fifty-four Forty or Fight!

      by kitebro on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:21:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can take it... (none / 0)

        in small doses!  Though Fox News Watch really is a good show (usually) and it's WAY better than Reliable Sources on CNN.  

        Our DFA group is working diligently on framing, and watching Fox provides brilliant examples of how the GOP uses language to whip us.  We need to learn to counteract it and watching is a necessary evil to that end (sadly!)

        Carrie French, age 19, died in Iraq on June 5, 2005. Why?

        by Susan S on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 05:06:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My hat's off to you! (none / 0)

          You are waist deep in the muck, fighting the good fight. I can't even watch any news. I haven't since 11/2. I can't listen to the chimp. I can't even look at him. Thank you for your efforts!

          I am not a crook!

          John McCain - Fifty-four Forty or Fight!

          by kitebro on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 08:56:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  New GOP talking point on Social Security (none / 0)

    "Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill" over and over and over again.  What is the significanse?

    by azindy on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:46:06 AM PDT

    •  Branding - link Reagan/others to social security.. (none / 0)

      That's my guess.  Take anyone/anything with a high approval rating and link them to your idea.  There's always to justify it.  People just want some shred of logic to hold onto.  

      Like, well Reagan didn't try to execute all black people, so that means he's pro-civil rights.  Shit like that.

      by shmooth on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:54:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republican, Hilary, on tv this morning.... (none / 0)

    TV is poisonous - really - all it does it piss me off, but I was feeling hopeful this morning - so I turn on the stupid box, and what do I see except this spectacle of the two upcoming Republican presidential candidates going on and on about how the contras 'are desperate'.  I mean, do you need a better reason than this to vote third party from now on?

    By appearing in the Baghdad PR stunt as part of their presidential campaigns, Hillary and 'the tortured-one' have attempted to further legitimize torture and the invasion of Iraq.

    My mind is already made up, but what about the rest of y'all?  Can you really see yourself voting for Hilary?  I don't hate her because she's associated with her husband - I probably don't hate her, period - but that would make me a hypocrite, as she is as responsible for the abuses of international law and human rights as any Republican.  It's not enough to vote 'no' on torture and then subsequently condone it with a PR trip to the land of torture paradise.  The PR trip 'renders obsolete' the no vote on torture.

    Hilary will attempt to get millions of Dems voters to legitimize war, and invasions, and expansionism, and torture.  Horrible.  Don't vote for Hilary just because she labels herself a Democrat.  Don't support Bush just because he labels himself a force for freedom.  Neither is being genuine.

    If you must vote Democrat, vote Spitzer.  Have him run on the pro-rule-of-law, anti-corruption platform.  It will win.

    Which reminds me, it should be us Kossacks who are nominating people to run for office, not the power structures.  Forget name recognition - about half of the country will hate whichever Dem runs for office, so pick someone with some cajones - not another 'centrist'.  We have to create a viable political left in this country, and that won't happen by attempting to elect 'Democrats' that Fox viewers will hate a little bit less.  

    Don't be that battered spouse who keeps coming back for more.  Run a strong (i.e. ballsy), roll-up-the-shirt-sleeves (literally), anti-corruption, anti-torture, pro-rule-of-law, pro-worker, pro-social security, pro-democracy, pro-civil rights, pro-human rights, pro-troops, pro-environment, pro-family, pro-tolerance, pro-harmony (anti-racism) candidate in the next presidential election and we got it in the bag.  And if not, we'll win back the high school kids who are going to be voting Republican 15 years from now because the Dems have acted so cowardly (or, 'enably') for so long.

    The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.  -- Albert Einstein --

    The Presidential election is just one smart part of what it means to want to effect change - and to be 'doing something about it', but I think voting for a 'centrist Dem' is worse than voting third-party or write-in candidate.  So, as concerns the presidential election, specifically, if you want change, you must vote for a candidate it true to 'the promise of America'.

    I'm not suggesting that anyone who votes for Hilary and any other 'centrist Dem' is a little Eichman, but I am suggesting that you will be much more morally culpable for the acts committed in the name of the United States if you choose to vote for such a person - more than I or Ralph Nader would be responsible - because at least we are demanding change.  Sure, there are differences between the two parties, but suggesting that both aren't owned by the corporations is absurd - and that only allows policy to bend so much away from corruption and cronyism, towards freedom and justice.  Demand a change.

    Don't be part of the crowd that legitimizes torture.  Don't do it.

    Take some inspiration from Bruce (Windows Media, 8.5 MB) if you need it.  He's the kind of Democrat we need to run - the kind that will once again show us 'the promise of America'.

    It's scary to think that Bruce would probably vote for Hilary.  Doh!  But I'll tell you what - he's thinking about it - real hard.  Don't ever expect to get a multi-party system here in the U.S. while we continue to prop-up our half of the equation - it just ain't gonna happen.  So, next time you think about complaining about corporate control of our government, the news media, major social institutions - just don't - not if you voted Dem or Republican - just don't do it - you won't have a moral leg to stand on.

    by shmooth on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:46:56 AM PDT

    •  Spitzer=this century's FDR? (none / 0)

      I'm reading Ted Morgan's biography of FDR right now and I'm amazed about the similarities b/w those times and today. The Democrats were really down in the dumps after the Wilson presidency. Harding/Coolidge and Hoover ushered in an era of anti-regulation, which led to the American economic and political scene being overrun by crony capitalists. Crony capitalism allowed many inefficiencies within the market system to flourish during the 1920s, which ultimately led to the stock market crash and market failures in the late 1920s and 1930s. Then came along a New York governor, with an elite background, who ushered in government activism. Briefly reading Spitzer's biography, I think he could fill the FDR role very well and usher in this century's activist government:

      From an elite background? check
      Dealt with security issues (FDR was a securities lawyer very briefly in b/w his Assistant Secretary of Navy and NY Governor period, whereas Spitzer has dealt w/securities law as NY AG): check
      Soon to be the New York governor? check
      Hates crony capitalism? check

      I hope that Spitzer runs in 2012. By that time he'll be NY's governor for 6 years. I want him to have significant executive experience before he becomes president. I think by 2012, the American public will be really tired of Republican rule just like they were in 1932. I don't want to see my Democratic president hamstrung by a Republican Congress and have to compromise away his healthcare plan, new anti-trust regulations and other social programs.

      I say that we put Hilary Clinton up in 2008, let her lose and then we progressives can put up someone that we really want in 2012 (Governor Spitzer and possibly Senator Obama as VP). In 2008, we still might have a Republican-dominated Congress. I just don't want a Democratic president faced with the HUGE budgetary crisis that Bush is going to leave his successor in 2009 with a Republican Congress blaming him/her at every turn and hampering his/her programs to resolve the problem. I want all the blame for the financial collpse in the markets and throughout the American economy to go to who it belongs--the Republicans in Washington. We Dems could take back the House and the Senate in 2010 and the White House in 2012 AND remain in the White House and Congress for a LONG time after that like we did throughout the mid-late 20th century.

      I'm tired of Democrats accepting/getting so little with the centrist ideology!! We need to start thinking bigger than winning the next election, but take a longer viewer IMHO!!

      by ademption on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 10:23:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 76 comments