blackascoal

Newt Gingrinch was saying he might run today. Maybe that would help the Republicans. Newt would hurt the republicans big time and there is no republican clamoring for him to get in the race except from the far right. No far-right, pro-war candidate will win in 2008. In fact, Newt and McCain are the only ones running.

It's a disgusting idea and another reason to keep a close eye on the democrats.

This is where the Democrats typically go wrong. They insult many, many Americans who voted for Bush Jnr. In many cases, these Americans are precisely the people whom Democrats will need if they hope to win. You don't win voters support by looking down on them. By calling Bush Jnr stoopid, the Democrats appear superior and alienate many ordinary voters. First, I'm not a democrat. You'll have to ask them what they call Bush. Secondly, what most Americans are is against the war, tired of republican rule, sick of politicians, and think the country is headed in the wrong direction. I'm absolutely sure that many of those who voted for Bush wish they hadn't. I'm not here trying to win voters, I'm simply stating what I believe. Additionally, perhaps you just somehow missed the vitriol and insults that have come from the right over these past years. How you assign insults to only the democrats is puzzling.

It is indeed amusing listening to republicans talking about Gore and Clinton. Talk radio must be a very powerful thing .. to some minds. It's amazing. It's as if no one has noticed the absolute failure of the past 6 years. Just keep preaching the same "Gore invented the internet" mind-warp and no one will think about Bush. It's amazing.

It's not the fact that his father was black that poses a problem for Obama. He's a first term senator (elected in 2004) who has accomplished nothing of note.John F. Kennedy - the last Democratic senator to become president - was a war hero and had the formidable skills and money of his father behind him. George McGovern - the last Democratic senator to be a presidential candidate - had a considerable reputation on which to run. It may say more about Hillary Clinton's campaign - she's in it to win. There is quite bit you're missing in your perseption .. in my opinion. First, George Bush has set such a low standard for president that I think all the talk of what qualified one to be president is moot. The presidency in 2008 will be, as it should, judged on intelligence, character, and ideas. The American people are sick to death of politicians, irrespective of their party affiliation. The Iraq war is the priority issue in America today and Obama sits in a great position on that issue. All the others, with the exception of Gore, voted for it. Although he wasn't yet in the Senate, he still took, what is now known to be, the absolute correct position on it. A dumb and needless war. A sentiment shared by the American people. If experience is such a factor in the wisdom of the way one would legislate, why didn't the others have the wisdom to recognize what Obama, 23 Senators, 133 Members of the House, and millions of other Americans knew at the time? .. That it was going to be a dumb and needless war and waste on hundreds of thousands of lives? Exactly how much has this dumb and needless war cost America? If the questions of credentials, qualification, experience, background, or character comes up .. all one need do is take a look at the failure in the White House right now .. and all your questions will be answered. Call it karma.

Black Dog, They could have done what those who opposed the war did, many of whom are still in office and are now looked upon as leaders. Yes it can. By 2006 everybody on planet earth knew the fraud of the war .. and one did not need hindsight in 2004 or 2003 to know that this thing was a fraud from the very beginning. What did the 30 million people who marched against the war before it even began know that many democratic politicians did not know? What did those who voted and stood against it know that they didn't know? Isn't that what we pay them to do? Stand against irrational attack from the opposition and find a way to present rational thought? Running away from that is called fear, not leadership. I agree with that .. but it's hardly an excuse my brother. Antiwar opposition has been saying since the war began that kicking these brown people will only end up in greater disaster for white, black, brown, and yellow Americans. It is a message that Americans have finally caught on to and would have paid attention to even back during 9/11 .. when the mission was to get Bin Laden, not brown people. The 2004 elections were a colossal, historic defeat for the Democratic Party. In the midst of an unpopular war (keep in mind that the war was unpopular even back in 2004), massive job losses, declining living standards and health-care coverage, growing poverty, a plethora of corporate scandals, a republican administration caught in monumental lies and deceptions, and huge tax breaks for the rich, the democrats still failed to capitalize. And that colassal failure was directly related to their failed and cowardly strategy. Remember "ABB"? They tried to legislate from the middle being both antiwar and supporting the war, anti-Patriot Act while still supporting it and expanding police-state powers all at the same time. I suggest that they could have won if they had been stronger against the war, just as they did just two years later. One of the best things Ralph Nader said was "If you can't beat an idiot like Bush, do you really deserves to be president?" The war was demonstrably a failure in more than 3 years ago and millions of people were saying just that? The antiwar groups and politicians was not the Democratic Party. There were indeed several democratic politicians who stood with the antiwar groups, but often they had to fight against their own party. The Democratic Party deserves little to no credit for grassroots opposition to the war and grassroots antiwar groups will tell you as much. I know because I've worked with many of them .. just as the Democratic Party deserves little to no credit for the opposition to electronic voting fraud, which was also brought to fore by grassroots activists and experts, who often fought against the Democratic Party. I know because I've been fighting them. The Democratic Party didn't lead the opposition to the war, they followed it. Good luck trying to convince the American people that the Democratic Party bears no responsibility for Iraq. Democratic politicians don't believe that, which is why they're running for political cover on their complicity. No matter how you slice it brother, democrats who supported this madness are paying the price. .. as they should.

Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, was the president of Harvard Law Review, received a Ph.D. from Harvard, and was a law professor before he was elected to the Senate. In other words, he's more than qualified and quite intelligent, and I think the American people, more than anything, want an intelligent president this time around. And I'm surprised you are so contemptuous of the American voting public to imply that they are so stupid that they wouldn't vote for someone just because of the similarity of a candidate's name to bin Laden. I think they are aware of the issues and aren't stupid at all. Bush's current approval rating is testament to that. Um - I see you used the word "Harvard" three times in one sentence which I'm sure is supposed to impress us all, which it doesn't. The last thing we need is more LAWYERS running things in the world. But you've revealed a basic truism about lefties - you think the number of years someone spends with their nose in a book is correlated to the level of their qualification to run the country. Part of this tendency comes form the basic need of all lefties to ...well...literally, control the country. Lefties want small groups of smart people to legislate the rest of us - because they naturally think they're smarter than everyone else. I mean, what would YOU know about whats good for you. Unfortunately, this philosophy completely ignores that leadership requires much more than the number of letters behind your name. Perhaps that's why so FEW people with letters behind their name actually run anything other than a classroom in the real world. Besides, President Bush has an MBA from Yale. Every line of this completely ignores the reality right in front of us. It completely ignores the reality of total republican/right-wing failure. You speak as though you're speaking from the alter of political wisdom, when in fact, the right-wing has failed at everything and the Bush Administration will be remembered as the worst administration in our (America) history. And you talk of "leadership"??? The American people have thoroughly rejected right-wing "leadership" and ideology, and republicans now find themselves scrambling to the left and jumping off the ship of Bush as if it was on fire. No, the last thing we need are more IDIOTS running this country and it doesn't take more than just a casual look around to see that the American people agree with that. .. and so do many republicans. By the way, the voting machines were rigged which is why nearly every state is demanding an independent audit trail .. and they were rigged in 2006 but overwhelmed by a landslide of rejection of the right.. Doesn't matter if you don't believe that. You seem behind on a lot of shit.

Irrespective of the "vote for war and death so I can save my own skin expediency" that many believe the democrats had no choice but to do, the reality is that vote has come back to haunt them. They caved on the war because they were cowards, not because of the interests of the American people. The 2006 elections was a referendum on the failure of the Republican Party, not a celebration of the Democratic Party. Their failure to oppose this mindless war is why politicians like Lieberman might as well become a republican, and why Biden and Bayh don't have an ice cubes chance in hell of becoming president. That "Bush must go back to Congress" ruse was nothing more than pre-planned cover for their asses, so they could say "Bush made me do it." They might not have been able to stop it, but they could have given the nation a much louder anti-war voice and framed the arguments and evidence better long before the bodies started dropping like rain. One could make the argument that democrats have shown political expediency, but can hardly make the argument that they've shown political courage. Americans would have recognized the dimensions and consequences of this war much sooner had the democrats shown courage. In spite of their capitulation to evil and "save my ass vote", democrats still bumbled their way to crushing defeat in 2004 .. which is where the argument "they did it to save their seats" falls flat on its face. Opposition to democratic weakness in 2004 rose to a roar from democratic voters which strengthened antiwar groups and politicians. It was the work and courage of antiwar groups and politicians that drove the democrats to victory in 2006, not weak-ass mushy middle politics. I'll be the first to condemn Bush and his neocon horde for the disaster of Iraq, but to suggest that democrats HAD be complicit to their evil is far from the truth.

Black Dog, I disagree my brother. Their political support was all Bush needed. He didn't want their advice, just their votes. They could have said no and faced the challenge of being called "unpatriotic" rather than signing onto the needless waste on hundreds of thousands of lives .. many of the women and children, and thousands of them being American. They could have shown courage. They could have stood with those who did not support Bush. They could have legislated as if they were a real opposition party. But they didn't do any of that. They dropped their pants and bent over for right-wing talk radio. The Democratic Party villified and marginalized the left on Iraq. They put Kuchinch in a box, shut Howard Dean up, and worked to get rid of Cynthia Mckinney. There was a massive antiwar protest in D.C. last year where 300,000 people showed up to protest the war. You know how many democrats showed up to speak after many were scheduled? .. Cynthia McKinney. That's it. The Congressional Black Caucus was holding its annual conference right down the street at the same time. You know how many of them showed up? .. Cynthia McKinney. That's it, even though they've been against the war, and African-Americans, who sent these people to office, are the most antiwar demographic in America .. only one of them had the courage to show up. ..Why? .. Because Barney Frank, a democrat, representing AIPAC, told them not to go. The Democratic Party could have done a hell of a lot more against this war than they did, but fear of being called names and losing campaign contributions kept them from it. Now they're all running back this way .. claiming that they've been here all along.

Not sure what part of the country you live in, but I can't think of a single person that doesn't want a government. Without question, the vast majority of Americans want government, need police, and understand the need for taxes. We just want better government, better leaders, and intelligence. Best to open the job to everybody, knowing that intelligence is resident in more than just white protestant males. It would only be intelligent to do so.

Canadian Blue, Paul may not get enough support for the presidency. but the fact that he is even a player in the Republican Party after the last 6 years of republican prowar domination is amazing in itself. .. and he's from Texas.

how so? I agree with him. The democrats won the 2006 election by default, not by example of their leadership. Nearly all the prowar democrats are on the run, with the exception of Edwards who was smart enough to face reality and apologize for his vote. Clinton's star has fallen quite a bit and there are a lot of democratic voters who can't stand the idea of her as president, I being one of them. Confidence in the democrats is only slightly higher than that for the republicans and many have a wait and see attitude about the democratic Congress. They've flip-flopped on the impeachment of Bush, even John Conyers, for christs sake, who spent 2 years building a case. Many don't trust Pelosi as far as they can throw her. The number of people who identify themselves as democrats hasn't fallen as fast as it has for the republicans, but it has fallen. This loss of confidence and respect for democrats comes not only because of their cowardice on the Iraq war, but their cowardice throughout all of the Bush years.

Sharkman, I read a lot of british press brother, and Blair's decline because of his support for Bush is no misreading. Not even close. Canada, like the US, may have initially supported the war, but now everyone knows better. There's a trail of Bush supporting world leaders who have been kicked out of office and hopefully Harper will be the next. You can make a case for Australia .. NOW .. but who knows .. Australians may get smarter.

I don't believe that ANY prowar candidate can win the presidency in 2008 regardless of political party. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain are tanking in support for their run. Hillary is trying to run from her record. McCain is standing with his, but the more he does, the faster he tanks. excerpt ... McCain no longer rocks in Granite State By Brett Arends Boston Herald Business Columnist http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/vie...rticleid=177706 Thursday, January 18, 2007 - Updated: 04:20 PM EST As Mitt, Hillary, Barack and a dozen others jump into the presidential stampede, something interesting is happening in New Hampshire. For seven years, conventional wisdom has said that the state’s pivotal independent voters would line up behind maverick Sen. John McCain, as they did so famously in the 2000 GOP primary. But new polling data, to be released later this week, will suggest that might no longer be the case. Manchester, N.H.-based American Research Group finds that McCain’s popularity among New Hampshire’s independent voters has collapsed. “John McCain is tanking,” says ARG president Dick Bennett. “That’s the big thing [we’re finding]. In New Hampshire a year ago he got 49 percent among independent voters. That number’s way down, to 29 percent now.” American Research Group, which is New Hampshire’s leading polling company and has been operating in the state since 1976, polled 1,200 likely Granite State voters in the survey. Bennett says ARG is finding a similar trend in other states polled, including early primary battlegrounds like Iowa and Nevada. “We’re finding this everywhere,” he says. The main reason isn’t hard to find: His hawkish stance on the Iraq war, which is tying him ever more closely to an unpopular president. “Independent support for McCain is evaporating because they view him as tied to Bush,” says Bennett. ----------------------------------------- The rising stars in both parties (Obama and Ron Paul) are both against the Iraq war.

But such has not always been the total American experience....from the abolitionist movement (birth of the Republican Party) all the way through struggles for civil rights in the 60's/70's. If religion is never good to mix, then America would not have tolerated Dr. King or the Islamic objections of M. Ali. Like guns, it is part of what makes America what it is...good or bad. "Liberal" Norway has an official state Protestant religion based on Evangelical-Lutherans. Much of what you've said here is true, however what King and Ali preached most was common to all people regardless of faith or lack of faith. It was social justice. It was the commonality of all people. Religion by its very nature is divisive. It's one deity, one God versus another. What we see in the world today are the wars of religions. I don't deny that religion has its place, but that place is not in government, in my opinion.

Whatever Guthrie called you doesn't have shit to do with me. I have not called you anything at all period. "Blacky" is a racist slur, which I'm sure you are well aware of. Is there a problem with you debating with civility? It seems that you have a serious problem with reading comprehesion and/or an inability to counter intellectually. I stand by everything I've said, including Bush is the worst president in American history who led America into the worst military blunder in our history, but he did not do it by himself. Given that you appear incapable of honest civil debate, you "leaving me to my wild accusations" is a very good idea. About the name calling: I know you never called me any names. That is why I said,"No Duh you haven't called me names". The ONLY reason I mentioned that the name calling had ensued was because as I mentioned, Guthie had called me names. You are innocent of the charge, except you were never accused of it. As to Blacky, I am often shortening up long names when I communicate on these threads, others do it as well, but I will call you coal instead since you have a point about Blacky having racist overtones. My original post poked fun at you and Guthrie for bemoaning how the Bush administration had ruined the U.S., and then talk about Obama like it could be quickly reversed. My orginal point, which August1991 immediately understood and agreed with, still stands. You are condescending, insulting, and rude. Any time someone disagrees with you, out comes the sarcasm. If you want respect from other posters, give respect. I appreciate the thoughtfulness, but you're still putting words in my mouth, and Guthrie's too for that matter. You never read the word "quickly" in either of our posts. I even restated what I said in case you simply misunderstood my meaning. I never suggested that Obama is a magic bullet or saint, but he'd make a good president, in my opinion, and would be a light years improvement over the idiot we currently have. America is in a crisis and only intelligence will get us out of it. Obama is undeniably intelligent and that would be a good beginning to a long ass haul to recovery for an America that has been drunk with power. Nothing in that is in conflict with anything else I've said on this board, including Bush is A problem, but not THE problem, which I clearly define in the thread about the world reacting to American imperialism .. not just Bush. I also blame the Democratic Party .. and have said so. As for my being insulting, you have a right to your opinion. But, I've had good civil respectful conversations here with people who don't agree with me. If I mischaracterize something someone else has said, I apologize. If someone points out something they think I'm doing wrong, I may change the way I do it. Such as making sure that when I use "we" or "us", I clarify it, even though I don't think it was a problem. When posted to with respect, I reply with respect. Just as we're doing now. The point is, I don't sound like the person you think I am .. but you're entitled to your opinion. I can't think of a more futile or wasteful excersise than slinging insults over the internet. I'd rather drop out of a conversation or thread rather than do 8th grade shit like sling insults .. which is exactly what I did in the 9/11 thread. I come here for the dialouge, not to convince anyone of anything they don't want to believe. Again, I appreciate the thoughtfulness .. and look forward to ripping your logic to pieces Just kidding.

Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, was the president of Harvard Law Review, received a Ph.D. from Harvard, and was a law professor before he was elected to the Senate. In other words, he's more than qualified and quite intelligent, and I think the American people, more than anything, want an intelligent president this time around. And I'm surprised you are so contemptuous of the American voting public to imply that they are so stupid that they wouldn't vote for someone just because of the similarity of a candidate's name to bin Laden. I think they are aware of the issues and aren't stupid at all. Bush's current approval rating is testament to that. Excellent post.

No duh you haven't called me names. Let me direct your attention to the post immediately previous to the post of mine where I state the name calling ensues. It is a post by Guthrie where he calls me a clown and a few after it where he calls me a backward looking loudmouth, whatever that is. If you don't have the cajones to admit you think Bush has ruined the U.S., fine by me. The weight of all your rants in all of the threads begs to differ. It's just hypocritical to assert this, and then talk about how wonderful things would be if Obama becomes president. Since this is lost on you, as well as the name calling(even though the namecalling was in the post IMMEDIATELY preceding mine), I'll leave you to your wild accusations. Whatever Guthrie called you doesn't have shit to do with me. I have not called you anything at all period. "Blacky" is a racist slur, which I'm sure you are well aware of. Is there a problem with you debating with civility? It seems that you have a serious problem with reading comprehesion and/or an inability to counter intellectually. I stand by everything I've said, including Bush is the worst president in American history who led America into the worst military blunder in our history, but he did not do it by himself. Given that you appear incapable of honest civil debate, you "leaving me to my wild accusations" is a very good idea.

Jerry Seinfeld, When has being black ever qualified anyone for being President of the United States? Consider it this way .. what qualified an isolated governor from Texas of strikingly average intelligence who had little knowledge of experience of the world for president .. that you voted for?

Link can't think of a more obvious demand for tribute Good point.

Liam, I'll try to be more clear in my point. I find you to be an honest and intelligent poster so perhaps the fault is mine. Do you agree that America has a long history of overthrow of governments, including democratically elected ones, war as a business, and corporate inspired military intervention? In the simplest terms, my point is that those days are numbered because governments all over the world are no longer afraid of America, we do not have the power to force the world to bend to our will, and many nations are aligning to ensure that they are never again pawns to US imperialism. I'm not a fatalist either .. in fact, I see the lessening of US power as a good thing. The way forward for us (America) is by becoming a more honest broker of peace and seeking another direction other than war for profit. That conclusion is not based soley on what's happening in Iraq nor what is happening with Iran and Venezula nor the idiocy of Bush. As I've stated, Bush isn't solely the blame for the disaster of Iraq. There are a great many democrats whose hands are also dripping with blood. What we see before us is blowback from many years of faulted US foreign policy. Even after Bush leaves office, the stench of one-sided US foreign policy will remain. The rest of the world doesn't have to make a choice between the US or Iran as "the world leader". I'm not sure if the world needs a leader. But every country can make a choice if they are going to follow America into disaster and war. The truth of that is not only apparent in Iraq, but also the reluctance of other nations to commit more troops to Afghanistan, force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, or attack Somalia or anywhere else America claims is a threat. This will not change after Bush is gone. The way forward can actually become a brighter day .. but that will not happen if we continue to think that world is our puppet and if we do not alter our militaristic pattern of terrorism and CIA led attacks on sovereign nations. This is not 1950, and we must adjust to the changing nature and new alliances all over the world .. and the rest of the world will make sure that we do. Other nations, even small ones like Iran and Venezula, have weapons to fight against our intervention, not the least of which is oil and our economic vulnerabilities. I don't really think we are that far apart in our perspectives.

I haven't called you any names. I simply asked you to post what you claim I said .. which you could not do .. just as you cannot post any names that I supposedly called you. You continue to go on and on about shit that was never said. Seems that you're incapable of debating with honesty. I've challenged what you've said several times in this forum .. never once misrepresenting what you actually said. And you've not ONCE posted what you claim I said. No point in dragging on about this. Feel free to continue to create your own questions so you can answer them "intelligently".

August 1991, Surely this is satire. Bush has set a new low for standards to be president. He's an ex-cocaine using drunk of average intelligence who appears new to the english language .. and he's the president.

It would help in conversation if you challenge things that are actually said. Post any comment I've made that suggested athat all will be forgiven if Obama becomes president. In fact, post any comment where either of us said it. If you've been reading my posts I have clearly stated that, in my opinion, America will never be the dominant force in the world it once was .. nor should it be .. and that things could be better when Bush is out of office, but never the same. I'll be happy to continue this conversation from there .. what was actually said.

I completely agree.