Originally Posted by Finch

I read your words, and recognize the shapes, but as for understanding them I might as well be a dsylexic trying to decipher Swahili. I am simply unable to wrap my head around the notion that America might actually be a force for good in the world. I can contemplate the notion, to be sure, in the same sort of philosophical counterfactual way that The Man In The High Castle contemplated a world where the Axis had won WWII, or how my life might be if I had an extra pair of arms. But I can't feel it.

Consider it the curse of my generation. We've known only the America with the reverse Midas touch: everything she touches turns to shit. We see her as the aged starlet with too much makeup covering too many wrinkles, and we are unable to imagine her with the vitality of her lost youth.

The trouble with this vision is not that you haven't seen it, but that it's a lie you've been systematically fed. Partly, it's a side effect of the Adaptive domination of the Third Turning, partly it's a deliberately effort by individuals and groups who genuinely loathe their own nation, and want to spread that loathing to others.

But it's still a lie. The large majority of the positive trends and developments in the last 50 years derive from America, not in spite of her. That isn't politically correct, but it is true. A lie may go around the world in the time it takes the truth to get its boots on, but the truth will eventually catch up and keep going past it. Likewise, the "America is evil" and "It's all America's fault" lies are also going to be discredited generally.

And so it is with us; even the frequent poster with the screen name uncannily similar to yours phrases his jingoistic pronouncements in terms of ruthless realpolitik.

Realpolitick is just the way the world is. When different nations that, at heart, share no sense of 'us' interact, realpolitick is what you get. The only way to change it is for a common awareness, a sense of 'us' to emerge, and that can't be done by deliberate effort. It can only happen on its own over the course of time.

You can see an awareness of this very process, both its nature and its dangers, in the writings of the Founders in the Federalist Papers and in the deliberations at Philadelphia. They had a painfully clear idea of what they could and could not do because of it, and what the implications of it for the future were if they failed.

But why should you care about the ramblings of a middle-aged man with middle-age spread, old before his time? Because over the next decade, my generation will be taking over the levers of power, and we will seek to form a New American Order reflective of our experience: a kindler, humbler, smaller America, who earns a seat at the table through obeying the Rule of Law.

Contradiction in terms. The only way anyone gets a seat at the table is by possessing power, military and/or economic. Generational change has no power to alter that. If America surrenders her power, the dominant seat at the table simply shifts to the next-strongest nation, who will then act in their own self-interest.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I agree with you about us being on the wrong course, and disagree with Finch that America can't be a force for good in the world. But I can't buy off on a path of autarky and militarization. I'll write more on that when I get the chance.

Also, do you really think Caesar and Diocletian are good models?!? The first represents the death of the Roman Republic and the second represents the calcification of the later Empire.

It's an often-debated question whether Julius/Augustus destroyed the Roman Republic, of whether the collapse of the Republic opened the door to J/A. I'm of the later opinion, the Republic had dissolved in civil war decades before the Principate was founded, it had failed in the face of challenges it wasn't constitutionally or culturally prepared to handle.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

First we learn that our own intelligence agencies believe Iraq has bettered the cause of anti-American terrorism in the world (I mean wouldn't the anti-Soviet cause in Afghanistan have given a clue of what was to come?).

Now we learn that the majority of the American people blame Dubya for not capturing Osama bin Laden. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733

Maybe if he had spent $300 billion fighting our more pressing enemies and pulled a little more "We will paleolithicize you" on the Pakistanis we would be better off today!

I am actually looking forward to how HC will spin all of this. Any bets on what he'll say?

Sean, I don't know why you're so obsessed with what I'll say or not say, but I've never engaged in spin on this forum. Not ever. I've completely meant what I said.

Now, the track record over the last three years since you stated obsessing about Bush is clear, you are the one who has repeatedly turned out to be wrong in the things you knew to be true. The things you claimed everyone knew was true.

Shall we recap:

You claimed as sure things (that I can recall off the top of my head):

Karl Rove was behind the SwiftVets.
The SwiftVets claimed that Kerry had shot himself intentionally.
That Bush had lied about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger.
That Bush had lied about having reason to believe there were connections between Iraq and al Queda.
That Bush and Rove (or someone close to them) had committed treason by 'outing' Valerie Plame to silence Joe Wilson for 'telling the truth', even though he was in fact lying.
That Hurricane Katrina was an example of Bush's singular incompetence (quoting Sidney Blumenthal (a known liar and partisan hit-man) for support(!) immediately after emergence of the disaster)
Etc.

That's a handful of the things you knew to be true that were either clearly at the time or later shown to be nonsense or falsehoods. Some of which I pointed out, at the time and with corroborating evidence, which led you to shriek that I was 'insulting your intelligence' and to resort to name-calling. You've used ad hominem attacks over and over whenever confronted with inconvenient facts that conflict with your irrational hatred of Bush, I've refrained from descending to that level in response.

Well, sorry, but as it stands I'm not the one with a credibility problem, you are.

Now, as for the polls, there's nothing to spin. The question is whether they mean what you're interpreting them to mean.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Sean, I understand why you're so obsessed with what I'll say or not say. I always engage in spin on this forum. Really, always. I rarely mean what I say.

Now, the track record over the last three years since you stated obsessing about Bush is clear, you are the one who has repeatedly turned out to be right in the things you knew to be true. The things you claimed everyone knew was true. I'm sorry I was such a jerk, and liar.

Shall we recap:

You claimed as sure things (that I can recall off the top of my head):

Karl Rove was behind the SwiftVets.
The SwiftVets claimed that Kerry had shot himself intentionally.
That Bush had lied about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger.
That Bush had lied about having reason to believe there were connections between Iraq and al Queda.
That Bush and Rove (or someone close to them) had committed treason by 'outing' Valerie Plame to silence Joe Wilson for 'telling the truth', even though he was in fact lying.
That Hurricane Katrina was an example of Bush's singular incompetence (quoting Sidney Blumenthal (a known liar and partisan hit-man) for support(!) immediately after emergence of the disaster)
Etc.

That's a handful of the things you knew to be true that were either clearly at the time or later shown to be true. Some of which I believed, at the time and with manufactured corroborating evidence to be false, which led you to shriek that I was 'insulting your intelligence' and to resort to name-calling. I'm sorry about that. I've grown. You've used ad hominem attacks over and over whenever confronted with falshehoods that conflict with your irrational hatred of Bush, and I haven't refrained from descending to that level in response. I understand your anger now.

I now know that the one with a credibility problem, and I'll try to be a better person in the future.

It's good to see you coming clean.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The trouble with this vision is not that you haven't seen it, but that it's a lie you've been systematically fed. Partly, it's a side effect of the Adaptive domination of the Third Turning, partly it's a deliberately effort by individuals and groups who genuinely loathe their own nation, and want to spread that loathing to others.

OK, that's officially the most ridiculous thing you've ever written. I was born and raised in a whitebread exurb of Chicago and a tiny farming town in central Illinois. I doubt I even spoke to a Black person before I was 12. On top of that, I was raised as an extremely conservative Mormon. The first 19 years of my life were an exclusive diet of "America, Fuck Yeah!"

I personally protested in the Illinois capital against the ERA, primarily because I was told it would grant equal rights to gays and single moms. Then I spent 2 years in a foreign land preaching and defending a uniquely America-centered flavor of Christianity, came back and voted for Bush Sr. in my first election, and attended an all-Mormon university. Yet somehow, all on my own, without any support from family, friends or authority figures, I managed to learn about America's true involvement in the world.

So your "systematically fed America hate" trope is pure projection. Get over it.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Realpolitick (sic) is just the way the world is. When different nations that, at heart, share no sense of 'us' interact, realpolitick is what you get. The only way to change it is for a common awareness, a sense of 'us' to emerge, and that can't be done by deliberate effort. It can only happen on its own over the course of time.

You can see an awareness of this very process, both its nature and its dangers, in the writings of the Founders in the Federalist Papers and in the deliberations at Philadelphia. They had a painfully clear idea of what they could and could not do because of it, and what the implications of it for the future were if they failed.

Now, that makes more sense. Unfortunately for you, it leads to exactly the opposite conclusion from what you probably intended. As you point out, the Founders were pragmatists, not romantic idealists, and understood the risks of a nation-state guided by an out-of-control ideology rather than an accurate and practical understanding of the needs and goals of our neighbors. I was merely pointing out that you agree with them. Realpolitik is the word that describes this viewpoint. This is not a viewpoint based on the notion of America's nobility, but rather on its ability to make war.

Originally Posted by Finch

Because over the next decade, my generation will be taking over the levers of power, and we will seek to form a New American Order reflective of our experience: a kindler, humbler, smaller America, who earns a seat at the table through obeying the Rule of Law.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Contradiction in terms.

I think you meant "contradiction in goals", i.e. you believe that "earning a seat at the table" is incompatible with a "kindler, humbler, smaller America". That may very well be. But I'm going to try anyway. As I freely admitted, it's my ideological blind spot.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

You claimed as sure things (that I can recall off the top of my head):

Karl Rove was behind the SwiftVets.
The SwiftVets claimed that Kerry had shot himself intentionally.
That Bush had lied about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger.
That Bush had lied about having reason to believe there were connections between Iraq and al Queda.
That Bush and Rove (or someone close to them) had committed treason by 'outing' Valerie Plame to silence Joe Wilson for 'telling the truth', even though he was in fact lying.
That Hurricane Katrina was an example of Bush's singular incompetence (quoting Sidney Blumenthal (a known liar and partisan hit-man) for support(!) immediately after emergence of the disaster)
Etc.

That's a handful of the things you knew to be true that were either clearly at the time or later shown to be nonsense or falsehoods. Some of which I pointed out, at the time and with corroborating evidence, which led you to shriek that I was 'insulting your intelligence' and to resort to name-calling. You've used ad hominem attacks over and over whenever confronted with inconvenient facts that conflict with your irrational hatred of Bush, I've refrained from descending to that level in response.

Well, sorry, but as it stands I'm not the one with a credibility problem, you are.

Well, this might belong in a "We be 4T" thread. During the 3T, people just were not moving outside of their world view. If a fact conflicted with their values, they would deny the fact. Rather than trying to honestly determine the facts, they would go into ad-hominem and strawman. HC is coming clean somewhat here, but we were all into it. As I often said on the past, the general pattern of discussion in these formus have moved rapidly from discussion of issues to discussion of politicians to flame directed at politicians to flame directed against other forum contributors.

There is much that is honorable and precious in traditional Red values. These things must be identified and preserved. There is much in the pattern of 3T partisan stalemate that is abhorrent. The Blue Establishment isn't all that much better than the Red. The movement from 3T to 4T might be in learning to distinguish between the precious and the abhorrent, and in letting go of ideology in order to confront problems and find practical solutions.

HC has done a little true soul searching, and he isn't alone. No, I don't expect Red values to vanish, but if some eyes and ears are becoming clearer, this is a good thing.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

...I've never engaged in spin on this forum. Not ever. I've completely meant what I said.

I, for one, don't find that particularly reassuring.

Originally Posted by Finch

OK, that's officially the most ridiculous thing you've ever written. I was born and raised in a whitebread exurb of Chicago and a tiny farming town in central Illinois. I doubt I even spoke to a Black person before I was 12. On top of that, I was raised as an extremely conservative Mormon. The first 19 years of my life were an exclusive diet of "America, Fuck Yeah!"

I personally protested in the Illinois capital against the ERA, primarily because I was told it would grant equal rights to gays and single moms. Then I spent 2 years in a foreign land preaching and defending a uniquely America-centered flavor of Christianity, came back and voted for Bush Sr. in my first election, and attended an all-Mormon university. Yet somehow, all on my own, without any support from family, friends or authority figures, I managed to learn about America's true involvement in the world.

So your "systematically fed America hate" trope is pure projection. Get over it.

Amen, brother.

Let's throw this "everyone who disagrees with an adventurist, imperialist US foreign policy hates America" bullcrap out with the rest of the Third Turning garbage.

HC either cannot or will not understand the difference. Since he claims to mean everything he posts here, I posit that the former is true.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

There is much that is honorable and precious in traditional Red values.

No such thing. The whole "red blue" divide is not geographical - it's urban vs. rural. It occurs in almost every state. Even here in New York state, you have the liberal city of New York versus the conservatives of upstate. The upstaters despise the moral permissiveness of our great city, but they love a state handout once our tax monies are redistributed via Albany. Both cultures are wholly ignorant of one another. City dwellers see their rural cousins as backwards and stupid.

They poke fun at their unfashionable hairstyles and bizarre hobbies. The paranoia of the city dweller is best summed up in the movies Deliverance and Easy Rider. They are both 30-something years old, but they express the fear of being lost in rural America and subject to the mercy of cruel hicks. One could see this attitude directed towards the way we in the city reacted to the saga of Lyndie and Chuck - the perverted prison guards of Abu Ghraib. Lynndie and Chuck Graner definitely support urban "Deliverance paranoia."

Meanwhile, the urbanites are blamed for everything that is wicked and bad out in the countryside. Violence, teenage pregnancy, school shootings - you name it - it's all the fault of 1) Hollywood, 2) Violent Video Games, 3) Lil' Kim.
It's those urban values of abortion and divorce that make them such popular choices in the so-called "Red" areas of the nation. And it is the promise of moral clarity from empty suit politicians that wins their votes time and time again. It's the promise - not the reality - of some kind of "purity" that lures them in. The urbanites see them as suckers.

So, yeah, are "rural values" worth preserving over "urban" ones? What a silly questions. Values continue to change. We used to burn witches in the 1690s. We still owned people in the 1850s. And women couldn't vote until the 1910s. So things keep changing. So what.

Originally Posted by Uzi

No such thing. The whole "red blue" divide is not geographical - it's urban vs. rural. It occurs in almost every state. Even here in New York state, you have the liberal city of New York versus the conservatives of upstate. The upstaters despise the moral permissiveness of our great city, but they love a state handout once our tax monies are redistributed via Albany. Both cultures are wholly ignorant of one another. City dwellers see their rural cousins as backwards and stupid...

So, yeah, are "rural values" worth preserving over "urban" ones? What a silly questions. Values continue to change. We used to burn witches in the 1690s. We still owned people in the 1850s. And women couldn't vote until the 1910s. So things keep changing. So what.

Agree that Red v Blue is very strongly influenced by rural v urban life styles. Things change faster in the cities. There is more diversity. In most crisis, the Grey Champion pushes the urban, progressive, secular vantage point rather than the rural, conservative religious. Thus, the more urban and modern society is generally pushing democracy, human rights and equality. The more rural society has deeper anchors in religion, tradition and privilege.

I also agree that the two cultures have very negative stereotypes of one another. There is good and bad in both cultures. It is ever so tempting to see what is best in one's neighbors, and disparage what is worst about those different people who live far away. If in rural areas there is less change, they can cling to absolute value systems which never change. If in urban areas the impact of changing technology is felt first and most, it is not surprising that they champion more flexible adaptive ethics and decision methods. As the environments are quite different, there are many problems that might best be solved one way in the city, but might best be approached otherwise in rural areas, or the problem might not exist at all in rural areas. The notion that one culture fits all -- that Red solutions ought to be imposed on Blue populations and vice versa -- is a good part of the problem.

But both cultures have true values and traditions as well as disgusting stereotypes of how they perceive the other. In a fourth turning, I'm definitely with the progressives. There are new problems which have developed since the last crisis which can't be left unsolved indefinitely. New solutions must be found. Those clinging to old ways, those resisting change, don't come out looking well when the history books are written.

But the gap between Christian loving one's neighbor and a liberal's concern for one's fellow man is not that wide. There is much wisdom of the ages in conservative values, as well as much prejudice and inflexibility. We have to embrace new values. We can not ignore the ecological perspective this crisis. Traditional ethnic prejudices are again creating problems, and we must take a few more steps towards reducing ethnic and religious privilege, prejudice and dominance. While throughout the Industrial Age it was cost effective to use military force to sized land and resources, to push one's cultures into far away lands, changing military tactics and technology has closed a window of militarism that has been wide opened since roughly Columbus's time.

The conservative establishment will not lightly let go of behaviors that brought them wealth and power for so long. Change must come, but it will not come lightly. Those with power, wealth and priviledge will use them to retain them.

But this does not mean that every rural conservative fits the negative stereotypes that many urban progressives share, or vice versa. People everywhere have reason to believe in their home cultures. Much of that belief is honest and deserved.

There is a baby in that bathwater. Read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence or the Sermon on the Mount and hairs might stand up in both lands. One might learn to communicate more with positive values worth preserving than negative and hateful stereotypes. The former are worth preserving. The latter are not.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The "head choppers" strike.

The "skull drillers" strike back.

Of course John X doesn't think this war of head choppers versus skull drillers doesn't constitute "genocidal fury".

Nope. According to GD, the Iran-Iraq War had to be a 4T because it was a major war. So Iraq has to be 2T now. Ridiculous.

BTW, "head choppers" and "skull drillers" sounds a lot more exciting than "Roundheads" and "Cavaliers", to say nothing of "Yank" and "Reb". Oy.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

First we learn that our own intelligence agencies believe Iraq has bettered the cause of anti-American terrorism in the world (I mean wouldn't the anti-Soviet cause in Afghanistan have given a clue of what was to come?).

Now we learn that the majority of the American people blame Dubya for not capturing Osama bin Laden. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733

Maybe if he had spent $300 billion fighting our more pressing enemies and pulled a little more "We will paleolithicize you" on the Pakistanis we would be better off today!

I am actually looking forward to how HC will spin all of this. Any bets on what he'll say?

Sean, I don't know why you're so obsessed with what I'll say or not say, but I've never engaged in spin on this forum. Not ever. I've completely meant what I said.

Now, the track record over the last three years since you stated obsessing about Bush is clear, you are the one who has repeatedly turned out to be wrong in the things you knew to be true. The things you claimed everyone knew was true.

Shall we recap:

You claimed as sure things (that I can recall off the top of my head):

Karl Rove was behind the SwiftVets.
The SwiftVets claimed that Kerry had shot himself intentionally.
That Bush had lied about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger.
That Bush had lied about having reason to believe there were connections between Iraq and al Queda.
That Bush and Rove (or someone close to them) had committed treason by 'outing' Valerie Plame to silence Joe Wilson for 'telling the truth', even though he was in fact lying.
That Hurricane Katrina was an example of Bush's singular incompetence (quoting Sidney Blumenthal (a known liar and partisan hit-man) for support(!) immediately after emergence of the disaster)
Etc.

That's a handful of the things you knew to be true that were either clearly at the time or later shown to be nonsense or falsehoods. Some of which I pointed out, at the time and with corroborating evidence, which led you to shriek that I was 'insulting your intelligence' and to resort to name-calling. You've used ad hominem attacks over and over whenever confronted with inconvenient facts that conflict with your irrational hatred of Bush, I've refrained from descending to that level in response.

Well, sorry, but as it stands I'm not the one with a credibility problem, you are.

Most of everything above IS true, you have NOT provided corroborating evidence, and you are one of the most narrow-minded people I have ever had contact with. May your fear-based God forgive you.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Now, as for the polls, there's nothing to spin. The question is whether they mean what you're interpreting them to mean.

You and O'Reilly are the same. "No spin" means "spin". Orwell predicted you.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15622266/?GT1=8717 :

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as defense secretary on Wednesday, one day after midterm elections in which opposition to the war in Iraq contributed to heavy Republican losses.

President Bush said he would nominate Robert Gates, a former CIA director, to replace Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. The three were expected to appear in the Oval Office at 3:30 p.m. ET, according to NBC News.

Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15622266/?GT1=8717 :

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as defense secretary on Wednesday, one day after midterm elections in which opposition to the war in Iraq contributed to heavy Republican losses.

President Bush said he would nominate Robert Gates, a former CIA director, to replace Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. The three were expected to appear in the Oval Office at 3:30 p.m. ET, according to NBC News.

Any thoughts?

My first thought: how long has this been in the can? It's clear that when Bush said on Friday that Rumsfeld was staying on, he had already spoken to Gates. Just another reason that nobody should believe a word W says.

Also, when Bush praises you in public, you'll be pounding the pavement in "days, not weeks." Any bets on Cheney's departure?

Originally Posted by Finch

My first thought: how long has this been in the can? It's clear that when Bush said on Friday that Rumsfeld was staying on, he had already spoken to Gates. Just another reason that nobody should believe a word W says.

Also, when Bush praises you in public, you'll be pounding the pavement in "days, not weeks." Any bets on Cheney's departure?

Here's my best guess. Cheney acts as the heat-attractor for the next 6 to 8 months, then steps aside "for health reasons". This allows Bush to appoint a "new VP" ... one that will run for the top job in '08. Who in the Senate is well liked, Republican and ambitous?

In the past, I would have bet on George Allen.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here's my best guess. Cheney acts as the heat-attractor for the next 6 to 8 months, then steps aside "for health reasons". This allows Bush to appoint a "new VP" ... one that will run for the top job in '08. Who in the Senate is well liked, Republican and ambitous?

In the past, I would have bet on George Allen.

This is too funny!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Agree that Red v Blue is very strongly influenced by rural v urban life styles. Things change faster in the cities. There is more diversity. In most crisis, the Grey Champion pushes the urban, progressive, secular vantage point rather than the rural, conservative religious. Thus, the more urban and modern society is generally pushing democracy, human rights and equality. The more rural society has deeper anchors in religion, tradition and privilege.

I also agree that the two cultures have very negative stereotypes of one another. There is good and bad in both cultures. It is ever so tempting to see what is best in one's neighbors, and disparage what is worst about those different people who live far away. If in rural areas there is less change, they can cling to absolute value systems which never change. If in urban areas the impact of changing technology is felt first and most, it is not surprising that they champion more flexible adaptive ethics and decision methods. As the environments are quite different, there are many problems that might best be solved one way in the city, but might best be approached otherwise in rural areas, or the problem might not exist at all in rural areas. The notion that one culture fits all -- that Red solutions ought to be imposed on Blue populations and vice versa -- is a good part of the problem.

But both cultures have true values and traditions as well as disgusting stereotypes of how they perceive the other. In a fourth turning, I'm definitely with the progressives. There are new problems which have developed since the last crisis which can't be left unsolved indefinitely. New solutions must be found. Those clinging to old ways, those resisting change, don't come out looking well when the history books are written.

But the gap between Christian loving one's neighbor and a liberal's concern for one's fellow man is not that wide. There is much wisdom of the ages in conservative values, as well as much prejudice and inflexibility. We have to embrace new values. We can not ignore the ecological perspective this crisis. Traditional ethnic prejudices are again creating problems, and we must take a few more steps towards reducing ethnic and religious privilege, prejudice and dominance. While throughout the Industrial Age it was cost effective to use military force to sized land and resources, to push one's cultures into far away lands, changing military tactics and technology has closed a window of militarism that has been wide opened since roughly Columbus's time.

The conservative establishment will not lightly let go of behaviors that brought them wealth and power for so long. Change must come, but it will not come lightly. Those with power, wealth and priviledge will use them to retain them.

But this does not mean that every rural conservative fits the negative stereotypes that many urban progressives share, or vice versa. People everywhere have reason to believe in their home cultures. Much of that belief is honest and deserved.

There is a baby in that bathwater. Read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence or the Sermon on the Mount and hairs might stand up in both lands. One might learn to communicate more with positive values worth preserving than negative and hateful stereotypes. The former are worth preserving. The latter are not.

As a Left-winger who grew up in a rural area I absolutely HATE the rural-bashing done by urbanites. Most of us rural Americans are fine, intelligent people, not the inbred rednecks (like in the movie Deliverance) we are carcatured as. IMO a lot of the rural-bashing is a form of classism, since hard-core social liberals tend to be upper-middle class urbanites. The rural working class are a convenient victim of urban upper-middle class classism because we arn't protected by the upper-middle class urbanites PC taboos like poor, inner-city minorities.

Originally Posted by Odin

As a Left-winger who grew up in a rural area I absolutely HATE the rural-bashing done by urbanites. Most of us rural Americans are fine, intelligent people, not the inbred rednecks (like in the movie Deliverance) we are carcatured as. IMO a lot of the rural-bashing is a form of classism, since hard-core social liberals tend to be upper-middle class urbanites. The rural working class are a convenient victim of urban upper-middle class classism because we arn't protected by the upper-middle class urbanites PC taboos like poor, inner-city minorities.

Well written. You've just described a big part of why right wing populists are too often able to manipulate working people into voting against their true interest. A progressive polity will not last where the liberal elite thinks that it is better than the people.

Originally Posted by Odin

As a Left-winger who grew up in a rural area I absolutely HATE the rural-bashing done by urbanites. Most of us rural Americans are fine, intelligent people, not the inbred rednecks (like in the movie Deliverance) we are carcatured as. IMO a lot of the rural-bashing is a form of classism, since hard-core social liberals tend to be upper-middle class urbanites. The rural working class are a convenient victim of urban upper-middle class classism because we arn't protected by the upper-middle class urbanites PC taboos like poor, inner-city minorities.

Well, when we see faux-folksy types like George W "We Got Thumped" Bush and G. Felix "Macaca" Allen on the tube all the time, it's easy to make the leap to assuming that everyone who talks with a drawl is as idiotic as they are There's two people we're likely to see a whole lot less of, maybe that will help...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here's my best guess. Cheney acts as the heat-attractor for the next 6 to 8 months, then steps aside "for health reasons". This allows Bush to appoint a "new VP" ... one that will run for the top job in '08. Who in the Senate is well liked, Republican and ambitous?

In the past, I would have bet on George Allen.

Doesn't hafta be a Senator, ya know... and why would the incoming Dem-controlled Senate confirm somebody who would be a serious '08 challenger?

Speaking of the incoming Senate, I sure hope that they can draw out the confirmation of Gates until the new Senate is seated. I can think of at least one fellow who will have a lot to say about Gates and his connections to the Iran-Contra scandal: the Secretary of the Navy at the time, Senator James Webb.

Almost makes me wonder whether Bush had to speed up the timetable once the balance of power in the new Senate became clear. Bush does not want that whole scandal revisited -- there are too many of its players in Washington right now, and a lot of them have close ties to his disastrous Iraq policy. Negroponte comes first to mind, but there's also Abrams, Reich and Poindexter. Even Manuchar Gorbanifar made a reappearance in the "16 words" Niger fraud.

And lo and behold, Daniel Ortega is back in power in Nicaragua. Unfinished business, indeed.

Speaking of conspiracies, some in the blogosphere discussed this possibility:

The new Sec Def fails to be confirmed, so Bush reaches out for a "bipartisan" candidate, tapping... Joe Lieberman. Republican CT governor Jodi Rell appoints a Repub replacement, and the Senate goes back to 50-50 with Darth Cheney breaking the ties.

Except a funny thing happened on the way to the confirmation hearing: Dems made big gains at the CT state level as they did nationwide (combined +275 seats.) The Dems now have a supermajority in both the CT House and Senate. Another bullet dodged

Originally Posted by Finch

Doesn't hafta be a Senator, ya know... and why would the incoming Dem-controlled Senate ...

How are you coming to a "dem-controlled Senate"? Are you counting Lieberman as a Democract? Even though he almost always votes with the Rupublicans? And didn't run as a Democrat? Given Lieberman's record, were things to break on party lines, Cheney would get to decide a lot of votes...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In the past, I would have bet on George Allen.

Well he is available

Originally Posted by Justin '77

How are you coming to a "dem-controlled Senate"? Are you counting Lieberman as a Democract? Even though he almost always votes with the Rupublicans? And didn't run as a Democrat? Given Lieberman's record, were things to break on party lines, Cheney would get to decide a lot of votes...

I think Joe and Harry Reid had a secret deal behind the scenes. Joe gets to keep his committee assignments as long as he behaves like a good Democrat most of the time.

Joe may be an ego-maniac, but he knows where his bread is buttered.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

How are you coming to a "dem-controlled Senate"? Are you counting Lieberman as a Democract? Even though he almost always votes with the Rupublicans? And didn't run as a Democrat? Given Lieberman's record, were things to break on party lines, Cheney would get to decide a lot of votes...

Actually, he did run as a Democrat; at least, that's what he convinced CT voters to believe, and why he was reelected. He votes with the Dems about 75% of the time, and most of his positions are very liberal (abortion, environment, etc.)

He only has to vote Dem once: for Majority Leader. After that, he can go pound sand.

Senate votes are rarely on precise party lines; even so, Cheney will probably still break a lot of ties.
That's fine with me: the more America sees Cheney, the less they like him <puke>