True. So why was it different with Clinton? Oh yeah, it's the economy stupid. So if the economy were booming back in the Summer of 1974, the people would have said, so what?



By the way, Dubya's poll numbers, I hear, have fallen below 70% now. Whose it gonna be, you Democrats? We, Republicans, have shown we don't have the mettle for running the show. :smile:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-23 20:54 ]</font>

There's going to be no targeting of Bush long as the poll numbers stay high (like over 30% approval). So far the numbers are plenty high so your dream of a Democratic attempt on Bush will remain just that, a dream.

It's obvious why it was different with Clinton.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2002-07-23 18:00 ]</font>

30%! Nah, so as that number drops below 60, O'Neil is gone, below 50 and Cheney becomes the sacrificial lamb. At that point Bush is finished. O'Neil gones before the election, Cheney before the end of the year.

2003 looks to be the year Saddam rejoices over his next Bushwhack!


p.s. And what's so daggone "obvious"?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-23 18:05 ]</font>

On 2002-07-23 18:00, Marc Lamb wrote:

30%! Nah, so as that number drops below 60, O'Neil is gone, below 50 and Cheney becomes the sacrificial lamb. At that point Bush is finished. O'Neil gones before the election, Cheney before the end of the year.

2003 looks to be the year Saddam rejoices over his next Bushwhack!


p.s. And what's so daggone "obvious"?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-23 18:05 ]</font>

What the hell is your trip, anyway? At the same time Stonewall Patton is calling Bush a traitor to the right for going to war with Iraq, you're calling him a traitor to the right for not going to war with Iraq! And why do I get the distinct feeling that if the two of you ever came face to face, you'd share a beer and gripe about what a traitor to the right Bush is--while never mentioning the fact that either of your positions are closer to his than to each other's?

And please, stop listening to Michael Savage or whichever agent provocateur for the Democrats is putting this stuff into your head. Consider:

1. The stock market won't fall forever.

2. Most of the value lost in the stock market wasn't value to begin with. So the economy probably isn't going to take a big hit.

3. Most important of all: if the economy does catastrophically collapse, so does the world situation--so Bush still wins. No Republicans or independents are going to vote Democrat when there's a possibility of war against China.

4. There's a reason that not just America, but all of the western nations, are now turning to the right: the threat of foreign immigration. The Democrats have been counting on anti-American immigrants to hand this country to them on a silver platter. Now I can guarantee you that this evil strategy will come back to bite them in the ass.

PLEASE--STOP THE CATERWAULING!

On 2002-07-23 17:26, Marc Lamb wrote:


True. So why was it different with Clinton? Oh yeah, it's the economy stupid. So if the economy were booming back in the Summer of 1974, the people would have said, so what?

<center></center>


By the way, Dubya's poll numbers, I hear, have fallen below 70% now. Whose it gonna be, you Democrats? We, Republicans, have shown we don't have the mettle for running the show. :smile:

The President's approval rating depends on which poll source you use. I believe that Zogby, which usually ends up giving him the lowest rating, gave him an approval rating of 62%. The most recognized and widely referred to poll organization, Gallup, gave him 73%. Guess which one NBC Nightly News referenced a few days ago? You'd think it would be Gallup, which is more widely recognized, but nope. They go and air the lowest numbers they can find, the 62% Zogby poll, to make the President look worse. Big surprise there. >:-C

Mr. Flandry, when I use the derivative
sirname "Bushitler," I am, in essence, mocking Stonewall Goebbels. Bushitler is anything but what Mr. Goebbels portrays the man to be. In effect, Stonewall Goebbels is a liar and a propagandist of the most vile sort.

No, Mr. Bush is not "Hitler" and he is not a "traitor," Mr. Flandry--"ParanoidXer".

What Mr. Bush is, Mr. Flandry, is very, very politically correct.

Ever heard of the "new tone" in Washington? It's code lingo for go along to get along.

Look at the record, Mr. Flandry, old Ted Nugent would at least desire you do that. :smile:

I see two distinct differences from the stock market and 911. In 911 we were blindsided. Someone attacked us, all of us, as a nation. That prompted rage. Rage is an emotion that demands a response.
On the other hand the stock market is just an extention of what some see as the manifestation of the greed they've always believed was there. Some people have lost everything ( or nothing depending on how you look at it) But this doesn't promote rage.
I see a lot of depression. But, I don't see rage or desperation. We may get to that point
but right now, Baaa--Baaaa the obediant American Sheep are content to let congress press charges, put holds on bank accounts, and "see what we can get in a court settlement".

I would expect to see people throwing Maltav Cocktails in the Aurther Anderson windows.
Rocks and bricks at the offices of WorldCom.

I see less emotion about the stock market than I did for Princess Diana. A woman who touched NONE of our lives.

Here's one for Stonewall Goebbels:

"As Marc Lamb points out, the last time we had a big bomb go off on Wall Street was near the end of the post-WWI "Red Scare." The scare was a reaction to an anarchist / Bolshevist bombing campaign, including mail bombs and coordinated multi-city blasts (on July 2, 1919) that succeeded in partially destroying the residence of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. It spawned the notorioius Palmer raids..." --Neil Howe and William Strauss (Is the 911 Attack Triggering A Fourth Turning?)


An update on old Mr. Palmer:

Palmer on the Defensive

"Under attack by a growing number of critics, including members of Congress, Attorney General Palmer issued a letter directed to the nation's press. "My one desire," he wrote, "is to acquaint people like you with the real menace of evil-thinking which is the foundation of the Red movement." He then described the movement as calling for "the destruction of all ownership of property, the destruction of all religion and belief in God."

Despite Palmer's letter, the controversy continued. Four months after the raids, a prominent group of lawyers and judges published a report documenting dozens of cases of due process violations. It concluded that, "There is no danger of revolution so great as that created by ... deliberate violations of the simple rules of American law and American decency."


Eighty-some years later, is it deja vu all over again?

Ashcroft on the Defensive

"Several Bush advisers have begun complaining that Ashcroft has projected himself too often and too forcefully. More significantly, they say privately that he seems to be overstating the evidence of terrorist threats, the paper claims. Conservtives cite Ashcroft's anti-terrorist positions as enhancing the kind of government power that they instinctively oppose."


The bigger issue at stake with regards to September 11th:

"Historian James R. Mock has characterized the U.S. Government during WWI as a government "of the people, by the people, and for the winning of the war." Verily, the Wilson Administration went to great lengths to ensure victory on both the foreign and domestic fronts. Unfortunately, the subjugation of foreign-born citizens did not cease with the advent of peace. Indeed, many citizens would never again enjoy the freedoms they had known before the war. The continued infringement of civil liberties was due mainly to the fact that although the American public no longer feared foreign agents, the war frenzy had taught them to despise any person with radical ideas. The world was safe for democracy, but many Americans doubted that the same could be said of their own nation."

On 2002-07-23 20:03, AlexMnWi wrote:

On 2002-07-23 17:26, Marc Lamb wrote:


True. So why was it different with Clinton? Oh yeah, it's the economy stupid. So if the economy were booming back in the Summer of 1974, the people would have said, so what?

<center></center>


By the way, Dubya's poll numbers, I hear, have fallen below 70% now. Whose it gonna be, you Democrats? We, Republicans, have shown we don't have the mettle for running the show. :smile:

The President's approval rating depends on which poll source you use. I believe that Zogby, which usually ends up giving him the lowest rating, gave him an approval rating of 62%. The most recognized and widely referred to poll organization, Gallup, gave him 73%. Guess which one NBC Nightly News referenced a few days ago? You'd think it would be Gallup, which is more widely recognized, but nope. They go and air the lowest numbers they can find, the 62% Zogby poll, to make the President look worse. Big surprise there. >:-C

I think someone said a few days back that Zogby USED to be the one heralded by the conservatives... UNTIL recently when it started giving Bush lower numbers than Gallup; anyway, why not average the two?

(62 + 73)/2 = 67.5% < 70%; even if you weight Gallup twice as much as Zogby the net rating is STILL below 70%

On 2002-07-24 14:04, Marc Lamb wrote:




Here's one for Stonewall Goebbels:

"As Marc Lamb points out, the last time we had a big bomb go off on Wall Street was near the end of the post-WWI "Red Scare." The scare was a reaction to an anarchist / Bolshevist bombing campaign, including mail bombs and coordinated multi-city blasts (on July 2, 1919) that succeeded in partially destroying the residence of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. It spawned the notorioius Palmer raids..." --Neil Howe and William Strauss (Is the 911 Attack Triggering A Fourth Turning?)


An update on old Mr. Palmer:

Palmer on the Defensive

"Under attack by a growing number of critics, including members of Congress, Attorney General Palmer issued a letter directed to the nation's press. "My one desire," he wrote, "is to acquaint people like you with the real menace of evil-thinking which is the foundation of the Red movement." He then described the movement as calling for "the destruction of all ownership of property, the destruction of all religion and belief in God."

Despite Palmer's letter, the controversy continued. Four months after the raids, a prominent group of lawyers and judges published a report documenting dozens of cases of due process violations. It concluded that, "There is no danger of revolution so great as that created by ... deliberate violations of the simple rules of American law and American decency."


Eighty-some years later, is it deja vu all over again?

Ashcroft on the Defensive

"Several Bush advisers have begun complaining that Ashcroft has projected himself too often and too forcefully. More significantly, they say privately that he seems to be overstating the evidence of terrorist threats, the paper claims. Conservtives cite Ashcroft's anti-terrorist positions as enhancing the kind of government power that they instinctively oppose."


The bigger issue at stake with regards to September 11th:

"Historian James R. Mock has characterized the U.S. Government during WWI as a government "of the people, by the people, and for the winning of the war." Verily, the Wilson Administration went to great lengths to ensure victory on both the foreign and domestic fronts. Unfortunately, the subjugation of foreign-born citizens did not cease with the advent of peace. Indeed, many citizens would never again enjoy the freedoms they had known before the war. The continued infringement of civil liberties was due mainly to the fact that although the American public no longer feared foreign agents, the war frenzy had taught them to despise any person with radical ideas. The world was safe for democracy, but many Americans doubted that the same could be said of their own nation."

yeah... the anti-terrorism stuff aligns A LOT more with things around 1920 than anything that actually HAPPENED in an American 4T before

2002 is not 1920.

Palmer's activities were the same as the House Committee on UnAmerican Activites in the late 40s and early 50s. Let's add in the Alien and Sedition acts and the way the Radical Reconstructionists in Congress punished the southerners after the civil war.

Not unique enough to keep 2002 from being 1930.

2002 is not 1920.

Palmer's activities were the same as the House Committee on UnAmerican Activites in the late 40s and early 50s. Let's add in the Alien and Sedition acts and the way the Radical Reconstructionists in Congress punished the southerners after the civil war.

Not unique enough to keep 2002 from being 1930.

If 9/11 was the catalyst, I think we are in "1930". If the catalyst is yet to come, I would estimate it at "1926". (The reason I am using quotation marks is that we are not really in 1930, obviously) Others have made cases for 1923 and 1924, with "Teapot Dome = Enron" floating around.

"2002 is not 1920."

Ok.

From the STRATFOR.com site:
Crunch Time Approaches for Al Qaeda

Summary

With the anniversary of the attacks on Washington and New York
fast approaching, al Qaeda is under increasing pressure to carry
out another major strike against the United States. Recent
statements by purported al Qaeda representatives have been
intended to reassure the group's members about its capabilities,
but unless an actual attack is carried out soon, a crisis of
confidence may explode.

Analysis

Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a Kuwaiti who has been described as Osama
bin Laden's spokesman, said in mid-June that bin Laden had been
wounded by shrapnel last year during the U.S. attack on the Tora
Bora mountain region in Afghanistan, but Abu Ghaith insisted that
he still was alive and well. More important, he said that al
Qaeda was planning new operations, and that "the few coming days
and months will prove to the whole world the truth of what we are
saying."

A month and a half have passed since that statement, and al Qaeda
has not attacked. With Sept. 11, 2002, only 43 days away and
without a major al Qaeda operation in the past year, the pressure
is mounting to strike again.

This pressure is born of al Qaeda's core mission. It intends to
transform and unify the Islamic world under its understanding of
Islam, and set the stage for a decisive confrontation between the
Islamic world and the West. The Sept. 11 attacks were meant to
show that al Qaeda could do this, and according to Abu Ghaith
they represented "a great victory that broke the backs of the
Americans, the strongest power in the world."

The foundation of al Qaeda's strategy is to demonstrate that the
United States is vulnerable to attack despite its power and that
al Qaeda can survive the inevitable American counterattack. For
most of this year, the group has been relieved of the burden of
carrying out operations to demonstrate its survival because the
U.S. government has warned continually that the question of
whether al Qaeda will attack is not if, but when. The American
response surprised the network and allowed it to hold off on
widely expected attacks.

But in June al Qaeda felt compelled to assert publicly that its
leader was still alive, its organization was fully operational
and that new attacks could be expected shortly. Since the Bush
administration had not changed its position on al Qaeda's
capabilities, at least publicly, the only explanation for Abu
Ghaith's statement was that it was meant to reassure not just the
Islamic world as a whole but members of al Qaeda as well.

Certainly there are growing doubts within the al Qaeda network
about its continued ability to function. U.S. intelligence,
working with foreign intelligence services, has been penetrating
al Qaeda's networks systematically, announcing some daily
arrests, keeping others confidential. Washington cannot be
certain how badly it has damaged the group given that it is not
fully comfortable with its map of al Qaeda and therefore cannot
know what has been missed, but it certainly has made inroads,
quite possibly preventing some operations.

The problem for al Qaeda is that the same secrecy and
compartmentalization that has hindered U.S. intelligence also
makes it difficult for its own members to evaluate the
organization's viability. Knowledge that its operatives have been
captured, coupled with opacity about its capabilities, seems to
have created a crisis of confidence in al Qaeda that Abu Ghaith's
statement was designed to overcome.

It appears to have succeeded, but this is a success with a time
bomb built in. Abu Ghaith bought al Qaeda a few months, but if it
does not strike soon, the crisis of confidence will return with a
vengeance.

Therefore, we are moving into a period in which the pressure on
al Qaeda to perform will grow ever more intense. It will no
longer be able to rely on U.S. government statements to reassure
its members. At the same time, U.S. intelligence has been
aggressively attacking al Qaeda, making it dangerous, or at least
difficult, for the group to strike.

Al Qaeda's capabilities at the moment are unknown. Probably even
al Qaeda itself is unsure which of its assets remain secure and
which have been compromised. And the luxury of laying back and
waiting is running out. If al Qaeda does not re-emerge soon, Abu
Ghaith's statement will be proven false and doubts about the
network's survival will flourish. Al Qaeda historically has been
averse to risk, especially since Sept. 11. It is not clear that
it can continue this policy.

Al Qaeda never ceases to surprise, both about when it attacks and
when it does not. However, it appears that we are entering a
period in which the probability of al Qaeda at least attempting
to mount a serious operation somewhere in the world is increasing
substantially.

On 2002-07-23 14:24, David '47 wrote:

I think a poll of Democrats and all others on the left would make that nearly unanimous. On the other hand, they were agast at the extremes Republicans would explore just to hang something on him. For that reason alone, he got most of his support, from Democrats and common citizens alike.

The reason the GOP failed to hang anything on Clinton was that they didn't go to any particular extremes. They were terrified of his skill at manipulating the truth. This idea that they went on a wild jihad to pull him down in simply false.

On 2002-07-23 13:22, David '47 wrote:



The fact is, Clinton was a sleaze in his personal life, and lied to protect his ass, but all three Republicans: Nixon, Reagan and Bush, were more inclined to abuse the power of their office. I hope you aren't indicating that official misbehavior is less or even equal in magnitude to private misbehavior.

No president in living memory, GOP or Dem, abused the powers or prerogatives of his office to the extent William Clinton did. His offenses were hardly confined to his private life, though they were so intertwined as to be inseparable.

It was Clinton and his defenders who kept the focus on sex, not his opponents.

Americans pitch in, volunteer since Sept. 11, Bush says

07/31/02

Elizabeth Auster
Plain Dealer Bureau

Washington

- The number of Americans showing interest in volunteerism has soared since the federal government launched a new campaign to promote community service in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush said yesterday.


From Our Advertiser





Bush, marking the first six months of his creation of the USA Freedom Corps, urged Americans to do even more as he showcased a redesigned Web site for the volunteerism program and an advertising campaign that will feature celebrities including former U.S. Sen. John Glenn of Ohio.

"The last 10 months have offered us a glimpse of what a new culture of service can be, and we're not going to let this moment pass," Bush said in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House. "It's a movement that's just beginning."

Bush pointed to statistics showing that online applications for the AmeriCorps program have increased 90 percent since his State of the Union address in January, when he announced his plan to create the Freedom Corps, an umbrella group for new and existing volunteer programs.

He said applications for the Peace Corps have increased 40 percent during that period, while the number of visitors to a Senior Corps Web site jumped 57 percent. Officials did not provide information on how many more volunteers actually joined the programs.

In Ohio, public and private volunteering programs also are seeing large increases in interest, officials said yesterday. John Poole, communications director for the Ohio Community Service Council, said AmeriCorps recruitment in the state this year was the best ever.

Alice Korngold, who oversees a volunteer clearinghouse in Cuyahoga County as president of Business Volunteers Unlimited, said the number of people calling to volunteer has almost doubled for the first six months of this year compared to the same period last year. She said she is not sure if Bush's initiative was responsible for the increase.

Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher, president of FirstLink, a nonprofit agency that coordinates volunteer efforts in Franklin County, said there has been "a huge increase in hits" on the group's Web site this year.

"We have no way of knowing how they're actually using the information, but we have seen a dramatic increase in people seeking information about where to go to volunteer," she said.

Leslie Lenkowsky, CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service - which oversees some of the volunteer programs under the Freedom Corps umbrella - said administration officials are hoping the huge increase in applications translates into action in the coming years.

"Clearly the kind of huge outpouring that we saw after Sept. 11 is hard to sustain," Lenkowsky said yesterday. "It hasn't always been followed up by changes in behavior."

Bush promoted his volunteerism initiative last month in a commencement address at Ohio State University.

The upgraded Web site that Bush announced yesterday will allow people interested in volunteering to get information on opportunities to work with more than 50,000 public and private organizations around the world. The Web site can be found at: http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov.


To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

eauster@plaind.com, 216-999-4212





? 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.

On 2002-07-31 00:28, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-07-23 14:24, David '47 wrote:

I think a poll of Democrats and all others on the left would make that nearly unanimous. On the other hand, they were agast at the extremes Republicans would explore just to hang something on him. For that reason alone, he got most of his support, from Democrats and common citizens alike.

The reason the GOP failed to hang anything on Clinton was that they didn't go to any particular extremes. They were terrified of his skill at manipulating the truth. This idea that they went on a wild jihad to pull him down in simply false.

David is right; many of us voted for Clinton knowing he was not exactly a paragon of personal virtue but that his policies were much, much closer to what we wanted than what the Republicans had to offer.

HC: I have to disagree with you. Strictly speaking, not all of the Clinton-haters came from the GOP political operation, but there was certainly a network of people that were out to get him from the very beginning.

As I recall, Clinton eventually paid a considerable fine for the act of perjury he did commit. Some of us think that he never should have been asked those kinds of questions in the first place. But so be it. Once he was asked, he should have told the truth.

It did not reach the level of an impeachable offense, as far as I (and a majority of Americans) was concerned.

I suggest Jeffery Toobin's book A Vast Conspiracy for an objective view of this whole mess.

Jeffrey Toobin and "objective" do not belong in the same sentence together. He is as objective as Lucianne Goldberg, just not on the same side.

Clinton did suffer the ultimate punishment to a lawyer. He lost his license. And that happens to any lawyer who misleads the court.

As an aside, the questions that really did in Clinton were asked by his own lawyer. I think Bob Bennett is still waiting for his fees to be paid.

On 2002-07-23 14:24, I wrote:

I think a poll of Democrats and all others on the left would make that nearly unanimous. On the other hand, they were agast at the extremes Republicans would explore just to hang something on him. For that reason alone, he got most of his support, from Democrats and common citizens alike.

On 2002-07-31 00:28, HopefulCynic68 replied:

The reason the GOP failed to hang anything on Clinton was that they didn't go to any particular extremes. They were terrified of his skill at manipulating the truth. This idea that they went on a wild jihad to pull him down in simply false.

Yours is a strange version of history. I can remember the <s>Alabama</s>(my bad)Arkansas Republicans stoking the fires before the '92 election, hoping to get Clinton defeated. Then it was the bimbo-innuendo brigade, complete with the normal supporting cast in the wingnut press. That was followed by the partisan special prosecutor cabal, and finally by the impeachment. That's sounds pretty much like a full-court press to me... and I don't even like the guy!

It's just the hypocracy that gets to me. Every Republican has gotten a nearly free pass in the official domain, including those that had special prosecutors named. Name the last non-Republican special prosecutor, for example. Add to that the muzzled press, and you have the definition of "tame". And for all of that, they wear their persecution complex like a badge of honor.

_________________
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-08-02 06:45 ]</font>

"Name the last non-Republican special prosecutor, for example."

The guy Ken Starr replaced was a Democrat. There were others, too, as Clinton had many "gates". Robert Ray, the guy who finished the job was a Democrat. The federal judge, whom Clinton perjured himself in front of, that fined Clinton was a Democrat who had Clinton as a student I believe (or was appointed by Clinton).

The main issue in 1992 was that Clinton was a liar. He claimed to be a "new Democrat" and came out promising middle class tax cuts and all. He was lying of course. McGovern, himself, called Clinton a "trojan horse" and just about as liberal as they come. He was of course right, as Clinton's first goal was a government takeover of the heathcare industry--nearly 1/7th of the U.S. economy--something he never campaigned on at all.

You all said that character "didn't matter". And of course it hasn't until now. Now Bush is "corrupt" and all that.

How come character matters now anyway?

On 2002-08-01 16:00, Marc Lamb wrote:
The main issue in 1992 was that Clinton was a liar. He claimed to be a "new Democrat" and came out promising middle class tax cuts and all. He was lying of course.

The main issue in 1980 was that Reagan was a liar. He claimed to be fiscally responsible and came out promising to balance the budget and all. He was lying of course.

"The main issue in 1980 was that Reagan was a liar. He claimed to be fiscally responsible and came out promising to balance the budget and all. He was lying of course."

:lol: Well, I don't think Reagan's veracity was as much an issue as his ideology was. And with that, everybody at least knew where Reagan stood and intended to do once elected.

That said, you might scroll back up to the big "government trust" chart, Mike, it's quite telling on this veracity issue: Hitting a low point just as Reagan takes office, the line moves upward, hicups with Iran Contra, but resumes upward until "Read my lips" Mr. Bush raises taxes... then falls again hitting a low just before the GOP takes the House in 1994. Back up a few notches before hitting the bottom of about 20 percent sometime during the Lewinsky affair.

Is "government trust" important? I personally cannot imagine the New Deal taking off in 1933 without it. Nor can I imagine that WWII would have been won without it.

So what will restore it? How many trillions of bucks in that question, huh? :smile:

"...Clinton's first goal was a government takeover of the heathcare industry--nearly 1/7th of the U.S. economy--something he never campaigned on at all."

I clearly recall the Drug industry coming under a strong attack by the Clinton administration in 1993, Mike. Do you favor the federal government taking over this industry as Hillary was itching to do? Just curious.