Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Dominic:

The Democrats, the status quo party, can afford to have men without principle; we, the impassioned agents of change, cannot.

I second your sentiments on racism within the GOP, but...

You can take your "but" and your "sentiments on racism within the GOP," and shove 'em right up your phony ass, comrade Rush!

H.C.:

I guess I can answer you either way. I think Gore is sincere about not running, since he couldn't credibly backtrack on that. (Although he hasn't officially announced his non-candidacy yet.)

I don't know whether he's sincere in his political statements. With Gore, one can never be sure. But I am sure that what he's saying, sincere or not, is striking a chord.

H.C.:

For over 20 years now, the Democrats have been far worse about this sort of thing than the GOP, and we're seeing it in action again right now. After Reagan, the GOP became almost inept at this game. I honestly can't imagine where, in the past 20 years, would see the GOP as being worse than the hardcore Left about this sort of thing.

We were talking about the Democratic Party, not the "hardcore left." The hardcore left has been mostly silent for the past 20 years. Although that is now changing.

As to how the GOP has been worse than the Democrats, do the words "Clinton impeachment" mean anything to you? Of course they've been worse! The Democrats have been almost benign by comparison, indeed they need to get up off their duffs and start fighting again. That's why they lost the last election.

It was initialy driven by the Democrats.

Honestly, I didn't see a single quote from a Democrat until after the Republicans had already expressed outrage. You said yourself it took the Dems two days. Although some of them have now spoken out, the volume of censure is still much louder on the GOP side, as indeed it should be.

I've said before that the Democratic leadership has lost touch with big chunks of their own base.

Yes, and so have I, but that's why the Democrats are currently undergoing a debate and an upheaval. Their leadership has already been replaced in the House. You're going to see a lot of internal strife in the Senate next term, too, since Daschle had the bad taste and sense not to follow Gephardt's example. That will be especially true if Lott resigns his Senate seat and is replaced by a Democrat, bringing the balance to 50-50. (Still GOP controlled with Cheney as the tiebreaker, but not the same.)

The storms will, for the moment, hurt Democratic legislative effectiveness in the Senate. Unfortunate, but necessary. They have some housecleaning of their own to do, and it's a lot more serious than any lingering racism in the GOP.

MOST of the recent racial controversies in America have been manufactured, and this one is no exception.

If you think this controversy was manufactured, then perhaps you haven't done the reading on Lott's history that I recently did. Lott is indeed a racist. And far from using every statement he ever uttered, the Democrats have been amazingly easy on him in the past. I think they're being easy now, too, or would be if the Republicans were. But to their credit, the GOP isn't.

Notice that the Democrats have never, never tried to paint George W. Bush as a racist. That's because there's no evidence he is one and much evidence that he's not. He's a terrible president IMO, but credit where it's due. He's not a racial bigot. And the Democrats can't paint him as one.

Really, truly, this can't be manufactured. It can be amplified, spun, blown out of proportion, sure. But there has to be some fire to generate the smoke. And in most of the GOP, there just isn't any more. It won't work.

Find the exceptions, the Republican pols where it will work, and you will also find 1) a genuine racist, and 2) a former Democrat from the South. Nine times out of ten, anyway.

HOW are they worse recently?

When I say "recently," I mean during the Awakening, not yesterday-recently. The Democrats, starting with the Truman administration, switched roles and policies and came out for civil rights. The Republicans opposed them. In that sense, the GOP has been worse in terms of racism than the Democrats in the current saeculum. Before that, no.

That's why the Pubs picked up so many southern Democrats.

You may well be right about Rove. All I know for sure is that Lott is getting no support from Bush.

I guess 60 minutes hadn't yet aired in the Pacific Time Zone when you wrote this, Brian.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C.:

I guess I can answer you either way. I think Gore is sincere about not running, since he couldn't credibly backtrack on that. (Although he hasn't officially announced his non-candidacy yet.)

I think this qualifies as a 'official announcement of non-candidacy'. Standard disclaimers apply.

Gore Will Not Run for President in 2004
by ADAM NAGOURNEY -- New York Times 12/15/2002

Al Gore has decided against running for president in 2004, ending a
month-long flirtation with another candidacy.

Mr. Gore announced his decision in an interview on "60 Minutes" tonight. The
decision marks the end of a chapter in the political life of Mr. Gore while
immediately recasting the entire Democratic field.

"I've decided that I will not be a candidate for president in 2004," Gore
said on the show. "I personally have the energy and drive and ambition to
make another campaign, but I don't think that it's the right thing for me to
do."

The decision by Mr. Gore caught even some of his own associates by surprise.
The former vice president had said that he would make up his mind after the
first of the year.

Instead, Mr. Gore decided to announce his decision in an interview with
Leslie Stahl on "60 Minutes" that came in the midst of a heavy schedule of
television appearances intended to promote two new books. He told Ms. Stahl
that he had decided that he could better help his party unseat President Bush
by not running himself, and instead assisting whomever the Democrats
nominate.

Mr. Gore's associates had said in recent days that he had seemed increasingly
unwilling to run. They described him as happy with the life he has built
outside of politics: teaching, delivering speeches and working for a
financial firm. He and his wife, Tipper, just moved to a new home in
Tennessee.

Mr. Gore's decision opens the way for his running mate from 2000, Senator
Joseph I. Lieberman, to run for president. Mr. Lieberman had said he would
run only if Mr. Gore did not, but he has been actively laying the groundwork
in the event that Mr. Gore stepped aside.

The other two declared candidates are Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and
Governor Howard Dean of Vermont. Mr. Gore's decision, several Democrats said
tonight, is likely to increase the chance that another big-name Democrat, Tom
Daschle of South Dakota, the Senate majority leader, will enter the race.

Among the other potential candidates are Richard A. Gephardt, the House
minority leader, and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Mr. Gore's decision complicates the strategy of all the lesser-known
candidates. Aides to Mr. Kerry, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Dean and Mr. Edwards had
said they would welcome Mr. Gore's entry into the race, in the belief that if
any of them could defeat him, or come close to defeating him, in one of the
early primaries, they would instantly vault to the head of the field.

Some polls have shown that among Democrats, Mr. Gore would have been the
favored candidate. However, such early polls tend to be unreliable because
they measure name recognition more than anything else. More revealingly,
perhaps, other polls, including one by The New York Times and CBS News last
month, found that Mr. Gore is viewed negatively by around 40 percent of
Americans, a perilously high figure for anyone considering a race for
president.

Mr. Gore is thought by many to enjoy catching people by surprise, and his
decision to announce his plans on "60 Minutes," which one associate described
as impulsive, seemed certain to reinforce that reputation.

In recent days, he had set up a schedule of telephone calls to consult with
Democrats and supporters about what he should do. He had said he would give
two speeches in January on the subjects of the economy and health care, and
he had scheduled television interviews going into the month.

Oh, boy, looks like a repeat of Bush vs. the Seven Dwarves (how tall is Sen. Lieberman? ;-)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C.:

Do you mean about what he's saying or about not running?

About not running.

Up until today, he was certainly showng all the usual signs of running.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Oh, boy, looks like a repeat of Bush vs. the Seven Dwarves (how tall is Sen. Lieberman? ;-)

The presidental elections is nearly two years away, the primaries are more than one year away, a lot can change in that period.

Note: I watched an interview of Robert Reich on O'Rielly factor on Fox News, he correctly predicted in 1990 that Bill Clinton would run for president, now he is predicting that Iowa governor Tom Harkin will run for president in 2004.

"The Lott controversy isn't as cut-and-dried as you think. It is true that many neoconservatives are calling for his ouster; in fact, they largely drove the issue when Daschle was ready to let it slide. The problem is that, as usual, neoconservatives and paleoconservatives are talking past each other, neoconservatives with arrogance and paleoconservatives with a rising sense of rage. If the neos don't watch out, they may face a revolt in the GOP ranks." --Dominic Flandry


Paleoconservatives haven't voted Republican since 1988. No, the real danger in L'Affair Lott is quite simple: The GOP is, once again, bending over to please the left (though they'll never admit that), which only serves to embolden the losers of the past election even further. If Lott steps down, then the calls for him to resign his seat will rise (afterall, he is a racist and by stepping down he admits it). Then the Democrat governor of Mississippi will get to appoint a wonderful nonracist liberal to Lott's senate seat. Lincoln Chaffee then pulls a Jeffords, and hands the senate back to Daschle.

It's a beautiful thing, folks. The GOP will then be confirmed, by their own admission, as the racist party.

"The Republican Party has become a haven for white racist attitudes and anti-black policies. The party of Lincoln is now a safe house for bigotry. It's the party of the Southern strategies and the Willie Horton campaigns and Bob Jones University and the relentless and unconscionable efforts to disenfranchise black voters." --Bob Herbert, Columnist, The New York Times newspaper (December 12, 2002)


Republicans never learn, do they?

Brian,

Thanks for your thoughts. Don't be too disappointed when you get excited about the Dems upcoming "Alf Landon" candidate in 2004. All those "debates" you're involved in are meaningless unless the liberals/Dems can overcome these losers:

1. Augusta. All this attention on getting a rich, privileged probably white woman to join a group of rich privileged mainly white group deflects from all the other womens issues. (Maybe it is a sign of the 4th, focussing on fantasy).

2. Opposition to the liberation of Iraq. Golly, haven't liberals forever bashed US foreign policy over its dealings with dictators. What is it about Saddam Hussein that is so good? Thanks Sean Penn. Where are those Baghdad boys?

3. Security....any aspect of security. the left is against it. Either the left/liberals are weak, as Clinton just noted, or they have their heads in the sand.

Brian, I could hear you stomp your foot when you said that the "Republicans CANNOT be the party" through the crisis. Wake up and shake your stereotypes. Stop and think. These are not the Republicans of the last generation. The old Republicans would not have criticized Lott. Who is the party of action today?

Thanks again for confirming that many years in the desert await those of you who really really really wanted the crisis to be a rerun of the FDR era.

Also, if you haven't sold your stocks and moved into cash during this last rally, no complaining later on when the Dow tanks to 6000 or below.

Monoghan:

Augusta isn't an issue with the Democrats, only with a fringe group of feminists; Iraq is an issue on which you are misreading public opinion; and it is the Bush administration, not the Democrats, who are undermining security. As evidence, consider its current obsession with Iraq at a time when the real threat is the lax security around Russian tactical nukes. The Bush administration is actually CUTTING efforts to help the Russians improve that security. Does this sound like someone who cares about protecting Americans?

As for the alleged "new" Republicans, when they take a stand against the corporatization of the U.S. government, I'll pay attention to that. So long as they remain the party of big business, they have no chance to dominate. None.

You are really going out on a limb here, crowing so soon. We'll see what kind of song you're singing this time next year, when Bush's approval ratings are in the low 40s or lower, and the Democrats have found a new voice and vision. You can keep blathering all you like, but I know whistling in the dark when I hear it.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

You can take your "but" and your "sentiments on racism within the GOP," and shove 'em right up your phony ass, comrade Rush!

oh, goody!!! insults and hyperbole, wrapped around a nougat-y center!


TK

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

As for the alleged "new" Republicans, when they take a stand against the corporatization of the U.S. government, I'll pay attention to that. So long as they remain the party of big business, they have no chance to dominate. None.

You are really going out on a limb here, crowing so soon.

Monaghan's going out on a limb? Monaghan is?

What about you, Brian? Your prophecies contain no "maybes", no "ifs", no "buts". You are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the Republicans will not dominate the 4T.

And you rest this certainty on the Republican's stand on an issue hardly anyone has ever heard of?

Where outside this forum has anyone ever heard the words "corporatism" and "corporatization"? Did Gallup include "corporatization" on its latest poll of what the big issues are?

An awful lot has to happen for you to turn out right, Brian. An awful lot.

Google searches on these terms resulted in the following number of hits:

"economy" - 16,500,000 hits
"bowling" - 4,640,000
"terrorism" - 4,360,000 hits
"britney spears" - 2,170,000 hits
"corporatism" - 79,700 hits

Also:

* Interestingly, the top two "corporatism" hits were from a neoconservative web site (FrontPageMag.com) which usually favors the Republicans. (It treated "corporatism" as a merging of corporate and government interests, and considered this VERY BAD, thus indicating that neoconservatives are NOT "corporatists".)

* Another hit had to do with grade inflation due to treating students as "customers", indicating the meaning of the term "corporatism" has not really gelled yet.

Yep, I SURE can see "corporatism" rocketing to the front of public awareness ANY TIME NOW...

Originally Posted by Sanford

Yep, I SURE can see "corporatism" rocketing to the front of public awareness ANY TIME NOW...

The "Wal-Martization" of America; the behavior of top executives at Enron and Worldcom that betrayed the trust of their employees and stockholders; American jobs continuing to be shipped overseas; Big Oil dictating national energy policy, etc., etc.

Maybe the public isn't using the term "corporatism" to describe what's going on, but they darn sure know what it is.

Trollking:

You need not respond on my behalf to insults, etc. from nonexistent persons. If you just want to, of course, that's your privilege.

Sanford:

It is not going out on a limb to proclaim that the law of gravity has not been repealed.

As Kiff points out, the concept of corporatism is much broader than the use of the term. I was amazed, frankly, that your search turned up as many hits as it did.

If the Republicans are as blind to the storm brewing in the country as you, Monoghan, etc. seem to be, that only underscores the fact that they are incapable of dominating this Crisis.

Incidentally, the fact that conservative voices are being raised against corporatism, not just self-identified liberal ones, is the surest sign imaginable that this is the rock on which the GOP ship will founder, and the issue on which the political realignment will center.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Trollking:
You need not respond on my behalf to insults, etc. from nonexistent persons. If you just want to, of course, that's your privilege.

i wouldn't dream of it. i wasn't responding on your behalf. i posted that because marc's comment was ridiculous.


TK

It has come to light that the famous Supreme Court case of "Southern Pacific Railroad vs Santa Clara County" (1886) did *not* in fact decide that corporations were "persons" and thus entitled to protection under the 14th amendment. The court explicitly side-stepped the constitutional issue and decided the case based on something else. It says this right in the decision.

The text about corporations being persons was in fact added in the "headnotes" by the court reporter, a Mr J.C. Bancroft Davis. Who, it turns out, was at one time President of a railroad company. "Headnotes" carry no weight as legal precedent.

For details see http://www.thomhartmann.com/uphistory.shtml
and see also the book excerpt at http://www.thomhartmann.com/theft.shtml

...and now the NY Transit workers. Aren't events of labor unrest supposed to go up during fourth turnings? Or maybe the unions think that descretion is the better part of valor.

Standard disclaimers apply:

Mass Transit Strike Averted in New York


DOVER, NJ, 16-DEC-2002: A sparse group of commuters board a New York City-bound train at the Dover NJ Transit train station Monday, Dec. 16, 2002, as a threatened strike by New York transit workers failed to materialize. Millions of New Yorkers dropped their emergency plans and took their usual buses and subways to work as the union representing transit workers suspended its strike threat and kept negotiating. The union and transit agency are at odds over pay raises, health benefits, and disciplinary and sick leave policies.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Negotiators reached a tentative agreement Monday and averted a transit strike that had threatened to strand commuters, snarl traffic and cost the nation's largest city millions of dollars a day.

The deal, reached after four days of intensive talks, ensured that New York subways and buses -- which provide an estimated 7 million rides a day -- remained on the move.

Commuters sighed with relief. "I had no idea how I was going to get to work," said Spruce Henry, a writer who travels to midtown Manhattan from his home in the Bronx.

The 34,000-member Transport Workers Union must still vote on the pact, but president Roger Toussaint said the union's executive board would recommend its approval.

"We wish every New Yorker a Merry Christmas," Toussaint said after announcing the deal.

The three-year deal gives employees a $1,000 lump-sum payment, or an average 2 percent increase, the first year of the contract, and 3 percent raises in each of the second and third years.

As late as Monday morning, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority had not offered raises for any of the three years. In exchange for the pay hikes, the union agreed to measures to improve productivity.

"The zero was unacceptable," union member Pete Scotto said Monday. "We expected to strike. No one wanted to, but we expected to strike."

Authority Chairman Peter Kalikow said he believed the deal "marks a turning point in the relationship between the MTA and its unions. We have gone from confrontation to cooperation."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg also hailed the deal, which averted what would have been the first city transit strike since 1980.

"It is heartening to know we can rely on the men and women of the transit authority to help us go to work, school, shop or visit loved ones during the holiday season," he said.

The settlement was reached as hundreds of Transport Workers Union demonstrators marched from the headquarters of the NYC Transit Authority in Brooklyn across the Brooklyn Bridge to a rally at City Hall.

Token booth worker R.S. Ray expressed the ambivalence of many union workers about a possible walkout. "Nobody would win in that situation," he said. "Including us."

Just minutes before their contract expired Monday, union leaders opted to keep members on the job after progress was made on non-economic issues.

Wages were the main issue Monday. The union had sought raises of 6 percent for each of three years, while the MTA, facing a billion-dollar deficit and a proposed fare increase, had offered no raise the first year and linked subsequent raises to productivity increases.

The union considered a strike despite a state law and an injunction that barred it. Workers could have been fined two days' pay for each day on the picket line under the state's Taylor Law, which blocks public employees from striking.

Transit workers earned an average of nearly $54,000 in 2002, the MTA said.

While union members wondered what the future held, subway and bus riders were kept in suspense throughout the day, waiting for word if they would be able to get home in the evening rush hour.

"You have to stay tuned to the news hour to hour to see if you're going to be able to get to work, or get home. It's a huge hassle," said Michael Tuosto, 32, who works for Morgan Stanley, as he waited for a bus at the end of the work day.

The financially strapped city stood to lose up to $350 million per day in police overtime costs, lost revenue and productivity during a strike.

On the Net:

City contingency plan: http://www.nyc.gov/transitstrike

MTA: http://www.mta.info

Transport Workers Union: http://www.twulocal100.org

...in case any of you actually know him in person:

http://www.cafeshops.com/disinfo

http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id1164/pg1/

http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id2229/pg1/

Of course, some of the rest of us might be interested, too!

Recall, back on September 13, 2002, William Strauss and Neil Howe's list of criteria for determining whether the mood has shifted in a 4T or increasingly 3T direction.

Recall criterion #4 for a shift to a Fourth Turning:


A distinct shift, in public life, away from individualism (civil liberties) and toward community purpose (survival).




ACLU membership surges after Sept. 11
By Associated Press

WASHINGTON ? Whether protecting the disenfranchised or standing up for the right to offend, the American Civil Liberties Union has sided with those claiming they were wronged, even if it meant a distinctly minority stand.

But since Sept. 11 and the government?s expansive campaign of monitoring and detention, people are turning to the 82-year-old organization to help safeguard their liberties. Among them are conservatives who made the phrase ?card-carrying member of the ACLU? a political insult, but who now are signing up.

?Larger numbers of American people have realized that the ACLU is fundamentally a patriotic organization.? executive director Anthony Romero said. There are now 330,000 dues-paying members, 50,000 of whom joined after the attacks.

The group has been in the thick of legal challenges to the government?s broadening anti-terror powers.

Last week, in response to an ACLU lawsuit, the government agreed to tell the group by mid-January which documents it is willing to release about its increased surveillance activities.

Especially notable among the new enthusiasts are conservatives who once thought the ACLU represented everything that was wrong with the left.

?They are very useful and productive force in jurisprudence,? said Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.

Conservatives such as Hyde are mindful of the history of an organization that was lonely in its defense of positions now accepted as universal: Blacks who suffered spurious prosecutions in the 1930s, Japanese interned in the 1940s, books banned as obscene now regarded as part of the literary canon.

Yet the group continues to exasperate some with its uncompromising positions ? against a Ten Commandments monument in a Frederick, Md., park, against the government?s attempt to get libraries to use computer filters to block sexually explicit material from children, against drug sweeps that it claims are racially motivated.

?Some of their positions are extreme, such as objecting to metal detectors in high schools? where there has been a high incidence of violence, Hyde said.

For the first time, the ACLU is spending part of its $50 million annual budget on a national television commercial. An actor portraying John Ashcroft crosses the phrase ?We the People? from the Constitution as a narrator says the attorney general has ?seized powers for the Bush administration no president has ever had.?

?This focus on civil liberties post-9/11 has been a wonderful opportunity to reach out to constituencies who would never have thought of the ACLU as their home,? said Nadine Strossen, the ACLU?s president.

The organization has budgeted $3.5 million for a campaign that asks Americans to monitor their government monitors and report abuses.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Incidentally, the fact that conservative voices are being raised against corporatism, not just self-identified liberal ones, is the surest sign imaginable that this is the rock on which the GOP ship will founder, and the issue on which the political realignment will center.

"The surest sign imaginable", Brian?

It's hyperbole like this that draws me out of lurk mode, and you are a veritable fountain of it.

You don't suppose that the above is instead a sign that, providing there is ever some sort of "movement" against something identifed as "corporatism", that the Democrats will be the ones foundering (as the FrontPageMag.com article argues in part could happen?)

Nah, you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN your prophecies are right, GOP landslide to the contrary.

With you, there is no recognition that the values of the GOP and the Democrats have a very large overlap and are fuzzy around the edges. Nope, the GOP is forever "the party of big business" with you, despite the fact that the GOP continues to gain votes with lower income voters, and the Democrats have no shortage of support among big business.

Again, I think you should avoid saying that anyone else is "going out on a limb".

Emphasizing key passages from the above, lest anyone miss the signs that the two major political parties are ALWAYS in play regarding their stance on issues:

Especially notable among the new enthusiasts are conservatives who once thought the ACLU represented everything that was wrong with the left.

“They are very useful and productive force in jurisprudence,” said Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.

Conservatives such as Hyde are mindful of the history of an organization that was lonely in its defense of positions now accepted as universal: Blacks who suffered spurious prosecutions in the 1930s, Japanese interned in the 1940s, books banned as obscene now regarded as part of the literary canon.

Originally Posted by When Brian Rush

Incidentally, the fact that conservative voices are being raised against corporatism, not just self-identified liberal ones, is the surest sign imaginable that this is the rock on which the GOP ship will founder, and the issue on which the political realignment will center.

Originally Posted by Sanford took him to task and

"The surest sign imaginable", Brian?

It's hyperbole like this that draws me out of lurk mode, and you are a veritable fountain of it.

Originally Posted by ... but not being satisfied with that, Sanford also

Nah, you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN your prophecies are right, GOP landslide to the contrary.

Oh yeah, that was that hyperbolic landslide we witnessed in November. Boy am I glad you pointed that out. :P

Ouch!

I suppose I could come up with arguments that calling E2002 a "GOP landslide" is less hyperbolic than expressing absolute certainty that the GOP will not dominate in the future 4T, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader, and just say "ouch" again.

Ouch!

Boys, boys, boys!

Have some patience. In a few years (or maybe more than a few years), we'll all know when 4T began and whch political party and issues dominate it. Just hope we'll all still be here! :wink: