Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Apparently the government witness who admitted under cross that she wasn't sure whether Martha had told her the damaging statement or whether she had imagined it had previously shared her uncertainty with both the prosecutors and the grand jury. This from Slate's coverage (which is very good).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i was also forgotten when club counted girlfriends

You're a chick? God, I've got to make some major changes to my laminated list. The one with the posters-to-fuck, not the one with the detailed directions on how to fuck.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Hank, you know the rules. Any discussion of fuck-peas belongs on the other board.

Timmy moment: I think you meant "fuck-pee"

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
I have to wonder about this guy, and why Bush wants to expend so much political capital getting him in (unless the expenditure is more aimed at "don't fuck with me".)

I simply can't get good info on this guy - the two presses are so politicized, there's simply no good factual record I've found. I've seen him excoriated for saying the U.S. should be following the bible, but, at the same time, I see the hard-core christers are pissed at him 'cuz he fought to get Moore (the 10-commandments judge) dumped for disobeying the higher court. So, I have to wonder if our "news" system isn't so totally fucked that none of us operate, ever, on the same premises. Scary thought.

I watched his confirmation hearing. The rub, from what I can tell, is that he is a pretty religious catholic and the line of questioning on the left focused on whether he could divorce his beliefs from what is required under the law. He said he could and that he understood that Roe was the law of the land and would follow law until the Supremes say otherwise. He also had the opportune moment to enforce the ruling against Moore, further evidencing his commitment to the rule of law. I have not seen any other critisms of him.

I think we are rapidly approaching a watershed moment in US history, as the rule of law is on a collision course with 1st amendment religious rights. I think the FAR LEFT believes that devout religious adherence should be a disqualification from the bench (and perhaps public service as a whole), while the FAR RIGHT believes that these are necessary qualifications. We also see this in the this in the gay marriage debate, where the right of gays to marriage is directly contrary to the teachings of most religions.

These are but two examples of my predicted 2nd US Civil War (though I don't expect a shot to be fired). The age old capitalist/socialist tension is also becoming more pronounced, and we are quickly becoming more and more (at least) 2 countries living within single borders.

The best solution, as I can see it, is a third political party, uniting the liberatarian wing of the GOP with the the socially moderate, fiscally conservative wings of the Democratic party, and Rudi would be the perfect candidate.

[sgtclub]

http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com....-28778,00.html

[The Larry Davis Experience]

So Iran just held its national elections yesterday and the conservative clerics running the place were successful in keeping most nonconservatives off the ballot. This raises something of an interesting question:

This is one of the paradoxes of the Islamic Republic. As the internal situation becomes more unstable, the foreign policy becomes more moderate. In a sense, the professor says pragmatic conservatives have been in control of the foreign policy machinery and the national security apparatus. Now they're going to come to the United States with a deal namely that they're willing to engage in the United States and have a more rational relationship on the proliferation issue, possibly stabilization of Iraq and the Persian Gulf as well.

So the United States stands at a crossroads. It has a choice. It can deal with these unsavory conservative actors that just undermined a very vibrant democratic movement, or it can remain loyal to its rhetoric of sponsoring and promoting democracy in the Middle East.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ran_02-20.html

Now on the one hand I don't think anyone in the US government sheds many tears over undermining foreign democratic movements when our security is seen to be at stake. But the interesting thing to me is the way this proposed choice brings the admin's "long term security strategy" of promoting democracy (Bush's words in the SOTU) in conflict with its short-term security strategy (getting nations to submit to nuclear inspections and fight proliferation).

I would argue that we would get more mileage out of supporting the now-ousted forces of democracy, to show that we are not the same type of pragmatists that the clerics are. I mean, the baby steps toward democracy that we are requiring our friends in Saudi Arabia to take are miniscule compared to the democratic institutions which were already in place in Iran. This could be a watershed moment for democracy in the ME. But, in an election year I think the better soundbite will be "My policies in Iraq have neutralized the nuclear threats from Libya and Iran", so I'm betting that the admin cuts a deal with these pragmatic conservative clerics, asap.

I'm interested in what other people think on this. For instance, do people see a third way here, some possibility of the admin both supporting democracy and cutting a deal with the clerics? I can't imagine they'd be too keen on making concessions to us at the same time as we provide moral or material support to the opposition. But maybe I'm too narrow minded (or, uh, more narrow minded than usual)...

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience

I'm interested in what other people think on this. For instance, do people see a third way here, some possibility of the admin both supporting democracy and cutting a deal with the clerics? I can't imagine they'd be too keen on making concessions to us at the same time as we provide moral or material support to the opposition. But maybe I'm too narrow minded (or, uh, more narrow minded than usual)...

The adminstration will cut a deal if they can. The administration rightly sees proliferation as the most important foreign policy issue facing us today, bar none. Democracy is not an end game in and of itself, but rather, the best chance towards peaceful relations and the safety of the free world.

There is not much mystery in this decision. The administration has already shown its cards on this issue in Libya.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Democracy is not an end game in and of itself, but rather, the best chance towards peaceful relations and the safety of the free world.

What does this mean? That democracy is an empty word?

There is not much mystery in this decision. The administration has already shown its cards on this issue in Libya.

Libya is a far different situation. This is the largest democratic movement in the ME (except Israel) being shut down, by a group of clerics led by a guy who said that every vote cast in this sham election is "is like an arrow you are shooting at the heart of George Bush."

On top of the other policy considerations I'd be rather skeptical that the clerics would show us everything they had anyway.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I watched his confirmation hearing. The rub, from what I can tell, is that he is a pretty religious catholic and the line of questioning on the left focused on whether he could divorce his beliefs from what is required under the law. He said he could and that he understood that Roe was the law of the land and would follow law until the Supremes say otherwise. He also had the opportune moment to enforce the ruling against Moore, further evidencing his commitment to the rule of law. I have not seen any other critisms of him.

Anyone smart enough to get nominated to a seat on the federal bench is smart enough not to say anything at the confirmation hearing that would disqualify her. Pryor included. The opposition to him is based on, e.g., what he has done as Attorney General. Democrats are not opposed to those who are religious per se, and the suggestion that opposition to Pryor was based on anti-Catholicism was especially offensive to Catholics like Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy, especially when the charge was coming from a Protestant like Jeff Sessions. "Opportune" is the right word to use in describing the conjunction of Pryor's nomination and the Moore thing, since Moore is even more of a wingnut than he is.

From what I know about Pryor, I do not think he is the kind of guy you would want on the bench. Do you have any reason to like him, or are you just dismissing the complaints about him that you know of?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
What does this mean? That democracy is an empty word?

It means that most folks don't view democracy as the proper or most important "end" in itself, because political freedom for people with worldviews than our own may well produce policies and actions that we don't like.

When we're dealing with nuclear proliferation, stability and cooperation are the key. As you know, it is a common assumption that democratic governments built on the rule of law with good social institutions are more stable and less likely to engage in wars, etc. That may be true -- but most emerging democracies are weak on the latter two. Remember -- the U.S. fought about 10 wars of various sizes in its first 80 years (including the Civil War) -- most of which we started.

Its hard to say what will emerge from a democratic Islamic country -- we've never seen one. (Malaysia/Indonesia are barely democracies and not strictly Islamic).

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
What is Josh's take on Nader's purported entry?

http://www.democraticunderground.com...opic_id=376382

I don't about ole Josh, but at the DU 44% think Nader equals Stalin for letting "hitler" get power. I presume that means the other 56% might vote for him again.

In the years immediately preceding World War 2 Stalin urged the German Communist party not to cooperate with the German socialists and other center left parties thereby denying a common front against Hitler and the National Socialists..


If Nader announces his candidacy tomorrow and splits the center left vote and deprives the center left a common front against Buschco he is committing the same calumny as Stalin...

Let history judge....



Here's the pregnant question....


Does Nader=Stalin

Democratic Born Democratic Bred When I Die I'll Be Democratic Dead


Poll result (62 votes)
Yes (27 votes, 44%) Vote
No (35 votes, 56%) Vote

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

So, Nader announces his candidacy based on his deep desire to unseat Bush.

Which just reinforces my perception that Nader is an idiot. He's got the right of the argument for third-party candidates in principle, but from a pragmatic p.o.v. he's an idiot.

Nevermind. I'm voting for him (again), simply and purely because, idiot or no, he is the only candidate in this mess who has stood up and unequivocally stated (the possibly very unpopular belief) that denial of the right of gays to marry is unacceptable discrimination and that all citizens should have equal access to fundamental social and legal institutions and protection for their basic human rights and human dignity. What a novel and radical fucking idea.

I have to say I am relieved to have a candidate I can vote for with a clear conscience. Even if he is, otherwise, apparently an idiot. Very few other issues in US politics, to my mind, rise to a level of pernicious, unadulterated evil sufficient to turn me into a single-issue voter. This is one of them.

BR(last time I voted for nader because I believe third-parties like the Greens, who espouse almost no policies I agree with, should get fed matching funds just like the Dems and the Repubs. This is a much better reason)C

OK, I admit it, if the Libertarian candidate overtly and publicly espouses equal protection and equal rights for gays I may vote for him/her instead. But so far all the vaguely mainline candidates have been whimpering, appeasing scum on this issue, and I am confident that they will burn in hell for failing to speak out for what they must know is right and moral. (Not that I'm a raving partisan on this point or anything.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
From what I know about Pryor, I do not think he is the kind of guy you would want on the bench. Do you have any reason to like him, or are you just dismissing the complaints about him that you know of?

I don't have any feeling on him one way or the other, I just haven't seen any specific critisms of him that pass scrutiny, and I am opposed in principle to the abortion litmus test (on both sides).

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
So, Nader announces his candidacy based on his deep desire to unseat Bush.

Which just reinforces my perception that Nader is an idiot. He's got the right of the argument for third-party candidates in principle, but from a pragmatic p.o.v. he's an idiot.

Nevermind. I'm voting for him (again), simply and purely because, idiot or no, he is the only candidate in this mess who has stood up and unequivocally stated (the possibly very unpopular belief) that denial of the right of gays to marry is unacceptable discrimination and that all citizens should have equal access to fundamental social and legal institutions and protection for their basic human rights and human dignity. What a novel and radical fucking idea.

I have to say I am relieved to have a candidate I can vote for with a clear conscience. Even if he is, otherwise, apparently an idiot. Very few other issues in US politics, to my mind, rise to a level of pernicious, unadulterated evil sufficient to turn me into a single-issue voter. This is one of them.

BR(last time I voted for nader because I believe third-parties like the Greens, who espouse almost no policies I agree with, should get fed matching funds just like the Dems and the Repubs. This is a much better reason)C

OK, I admit it, if the Libertarian candidate overtly and publicly espouses equal protection and equal rights for gays I may vote for him/her instead. But so far all the vaguely mainline candidates have been whimpering, appeasing scum on this issue, and I am confident that they will burn in hell for failing to speak out for what they must know is right and moral. (Not that I'm a raving partisan on this point or anything.)

It's easy for one to sound principled when there is absolutely no chance of winning the election. You just have to appeal to an electorate of one. Whatever you may do or say, your outcome is the same.

[sgtclub]

Anybody catch this? I think he has grown tremendously as a politician in his first 100 days, though admittedly Russert went easy on him.