the DNC

[dazed]

I didn't want the subject of this post to blatantly state politics and get everyone riled up. but that's what this is really about.
the DNC (Democratic National Convention).

did anyone watch the Clintons last night??? what did you all think?

i think...go Clinton! the most powerful orator i've ever heard!!! he did a great job. whether or not they actually do get Kerry into the White House, i think he did an excellent job. he really holds kerry in high esteem, especially since kerry didn't evade the draft like clinton and bush did. gosh, if we could have clinton back as president, i would totally vote for him. darn 22nd amendment!

[pisces2473]

I know. I have been, and always will be, a Clinton fan. Don't really know about Hillary though...

[coll214]

I for one liked both of their speeches... Clinton is just a great speaker, period. Both of them. And i say in a few years, watch out for Hillary. I like the fact that he included himself when talking about evading the draft. Even Gore was good too, poking fun at the 2000 election...

[dietzy]

For someone that is not at all a Clinton fan, I must admit that at times he can be a great orator. Last night was one of those times. He has a way of using his voice and facial expressions and energizing the crowd. Hillary should have been taking notes. I found Hilary's speech to be very forced, unemotional and unconvincing. Not that she could have really convinced me of much, but she never smiled, her eyes showed no emotion, and there was no inflection in her voice. If her talk would have been longer, I might have fallen asleep!

Other observations...

Bill and Hilary (the happy, reconciled couple) didn't kiss and didn't even use the words "husband" or "wife" or anything remotely near that in their conversations or introductions

Bill seemed to rattle off so many stats and program at times that I think he was just trying to confuse people...there were some very confused faces in some of the panned shots and many people that were clapping unenthusiastically

The camera work when Hilary presented was very well done...cut to child nodding head...cut to older woman with tears in eyes...cut to woman in wild hat....

I found it REALLY strange that Bill would talk about the tax cuts that he got and being part of the wealthy...did people relate to that? Did that make the Democrats seem for the average people? Did people actually listen to that and think, "Yeah, Bill got a tax break and I am sure he gave it back to the government and said 'shove your return' or donated it all to charity or gave it to the middle class"? NO WAY!

I think it will be kind of funny when Kerry's speach will not get as much attention or applause as Clinton's did....Clinton is hands down a better orator.

Side note, but related...I just saw on a news site (honestly forget which one) that the TV ratings for last nights DNC were the lowest in history and more people watched reruns on other channels.

And for all of you poll lovers...check out this one by a major network...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/kerry_poll_040726.html

[paiger81]

***A Republican in the midst***

I was impressed with the Clintons, and yes Bill is a good speaker. My main concern is that they are overshadowing Kerry and his stances.

I like Teresa Heinz Kerry(her spunk reminds me of me), but John Kerry is just kind of wading around with no clear position and that is frustrating. If we had to vote today, I'd vote for Bush, but I am interested in John Kerry's positions so that I can take that into consideration.

[pisces2473]

I think the Clintons have always downplayed the fact that they are married when appearing in public for "political" events. Besides, they weren't there as Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton. They were there as Senator Clinton and (former) President Clinton. Yes, they are married, but they were speaking as two totally separate "entities" (senator and former president).

[Crimson King II]

Bill is a magnificent speaker. The only one better, in my lifetime, has been Reagan, and I say that not as a partisan, but because Reagan could captivate with a theme and a really broad vision far better. Clinton is very much a meat and potatoes, laundry-list, speaker, with a great ability to command an audience and work a room. He's always been very gifted in that respect.

YOU BET he'll overshadow Kerry...and every other Dem for his entire lifetime. He really will be the standard for the Party until he dies...as was Reagan, as was FDR for the Dems, as was Lincoln for the Reps.

But you asked about the DNC. I have a horrible fear of these people, as may be clear from previous posts. Here's my problem. Insincerity. It's the Reinvention Convention. Did you know the DNC's platform praises the Iraq war, supports preemptive military strikes, calls for broad-based tax cuts, eschews the UN in favor of unilateral military action, and calls for protecting traditional marriage? It's all in there...look it up. Now, does anyone believe that's what these people in the convention hall believe? I don't. I don't believe they believe that, nor do I believe John Kerry believes that. I think it's a collective neuroticism that prevents them from expressing their actual beliefs, identifying themselves proudly as liberals, and acknowledging to America who they are. Does anyone think Bill Clinton is ideologically simpatico with Kerry? Clinton is a pragmatist, centrist Dem for the most part. Kerry's record is far to the left.

But alas, conventions don't mean anything anymore. They're big infomercials, free of soul, free of substance, and free of significance...quite a shame.

And Ron Reagan should be ashamed of himself too. He's a pure opportunistic, loutish, neo-socialist with no respect for his father. And the Dems shouldn't condone him either...but he plays into a larger, Reinvention strategy, I think.

[dazed]

Originally posted by pisces2473
I know. I have been, and always will be, a Clinton fan. Don't really know about Hillary though...

yeah i have to agree that i'm not the biggest fan of hillary's. i thought she was all right up until a few months ago. that's when one day the stupidest thing came out of her mouth. she made fun of gandhi working at a gas station!!! anyone hear about this??? no, prolly not because newscasters would never put something like that on TV, nothing that would ridicule an entire group of immigrants and their children, a group that is growing and growing and becoming more and more a part of the american community. sorry...i just had to rant on this. i never got it out before and it really pissed me off at the time. what pisses me off even more is that it wasn't such a big deal and if hillary had said anything about jewish people or another larger group of americans, there would be weeks and weeks of outrage on TV and everywhere!!! and that could've even cost hillary this coming election!!! argh.

[lostindc]

Originally posted by Crimson King II

And Ron Reagan should be ashamed of himself too. He's a pure opportunistic, loutish, neo-socialist with no respect for his father. And the Dems shouldn't condone him either...but he plays into a larger, Reinvention strategy, I think.

Ron Reagan was given the opportunity to speak to a national audiance about a topic that is deeply important to him - how can you fault him for that? Republicans accuse democrats of "playing politics", however stopping funding for stem cell research is an instance of republicans "playing politics" with the nation's health.

[Crimson King II]

Puh-lease you guys. All things being equal, do you think this guy gets an invite to speak if his name is Morris Jones? Not a chance. He's being used, and he's being used in an effort to stick a finger in the eye of a party that will eternally be greatful to a man of the same name. I agree, I don't know much about him, but I DO know he's been estranged from Ronald and Michael for years, he's an atheist, and he's frequently sought to undermine his father and Republicans for years. This was opportunistic. He was being used. And, even his brother says so. I'm not too far out on a limb there.

[Crimson King II]

You think Ron Reagan spoke because of an opportunity to promote stem cell research? The Dems are already FOR stem cell research. He's not spreading the word or gaining support. He spoke because it's an opportunity to step on his dad's party. He could have walked on stage, waved, and left, and had the same effect. He could have come out, chanted for John Kerry all night, and had the same effect. This, "I'm here to speak about stem cells," is something of a clever ruse. His message was lost to the audience. What mattered, to the Dems and to him, was "hey, look WHO is speaking HERE..."

[Crimson King II]

Fine Brake. But we DO know lots about the Reagan family. They're a very close and loving family, but Patty and Ron didn't like the politics, and they consciously decided to be liberals to give their parents grief. Nonetheless, they still loved their father. But I think the opportunism to stab his father's party just because he's his son is pure nastiness. It's one thing to make your own path, but to trade on your father's just to get back at him is pathetic.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
But we DO know lots about the Reagan family. They're a very close and loving family
Umm they weren't for years...they got closer when Dad was dying, remember?

I think this is a crappy argument. Who really gives a shit where Ron Jr. spoke!?!?!? There are more serious things going on in the world.

[Crimson King II]

Simply going by what they have all said...from Ron and Nancy to Ron and Patty, the story is a consistent one.

[Crimson King II]

What reason do they all have to tell the same lie? I have no reason to doubt them. As such...just going by what they say.

[MetFanL]

I do think he went on there to promote stem cell research... it wasn't just Dems watching the speeches on television last night -- it was a chunk of the voting public... Reagan was able to teach people watching things about stem cell research that they may not have known. Mission accomplished. Again, he saw a national stage for his issue and went for it.

[pisces2473]

I think the point RR was trying to get across was the fact that stem cell research is needed to better the sick people in this country...NOT who to vote for. You can be a Republican voting for Bush and still petition your candidates to support stem cell research. He was teaching Americans, not propagandanizing them.

I know that's not a word, lol...I made it up.

[Crimson King II]

I'm sort of out on the issue, Brake. Here's the deal. Bush is the first President that has codified laws allowing stem-cell research, which is good...Clinton took a pass on it. Bush's position is relatively favorable. Second, stem cell research has not proven successful, especially the embryonic stem-cell variety. It seems that every major study of embryonic stem cell testing on rats has caused significant, down-stream cancer in the afflicted animals, usually at a rate far higher than those animals also seeing improvement in their condition. Adult, cornblood stem cell research is proving far more effective and more safe, and there isn't really any limit on that variety of research to date. I don't know that I buy the "stem-cell research" = "abortion" argument, which would steer me in favor of the research. I think it has great potential, but it isn't proven that safe.

[coll214]

Isn't that the whole point of research? The researchers need to keep looking and who knows what they will find. But they have to be able to continue in order to improve on it...

[pisces2473]

They could continue...but they need money...and most of it is coming from the govt. So that's why they are concerned. :(

[coll214]

Oh believe me i realize that... you can't be in my family and not ;) . Back to the other point, I think RR saw the venue and took it. When you feel passionately about something, you're not going to always think along political lines, at least I hope not.

[pisces2473]

True dat, Coll!

I, for one, am in favor of stem cell. My grandmother suffered from MS for over 40 years.

[Crimson King II]

Maybe when YOU do, Colleen. But when your name is Ronald Reagan, Jr., and you've frequently thought politically throughout your life, it's a different story.

[heatherf]

I can't find the transcripts of RRs speech, but I do recall that for the most part he talked only about stem cell research, and NOT about who he will vote for or who we should vote for. I think he said something vague like: we should vote for who we feel is right.....lame duck.

Hey, I could be wrong about this, but I just wanted to put that out there!

[Crimson King II]

He said cast your vote FOR stem-cell research. That's as close as he got to saying cast your vote FOR John Kerry. But again, his appearance was the story, not the substance of what he said.

[coll214]

Personally, i have more respect for a guy who can stand up and talk about something he feels strongly about knowing full well that ppl will think he's doing it for a political agenda or to piss off an entire party.

For the record- in case you can't tell i'm for stem- cell research :D.

[MetFanL]

I found the text at the NY Times. And, IMO, CK, the story IS about the substance of what he said... I don't care where he said it...

The following is the text of Ron Reagan’s remarks to the Democratic National Convention, as recorded by The New York Times.

Thank you very much. That’s very kind. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

A few of you may be surprised to see someone with my last name showing up to speak at a Democratic Convention. Apparently some of you are not. Let me assure you, I am not here to make a political speech and the topic at hand should not — must not — have anything to do with partisanship.

I am here tonight to talk about the issue of research into what may be the greatest medical breakthrough in our or any lifetime: the use of embryonic stem cells — cells created using the material of our own bodies — to cure a wide range of fatal and debilitating illnesses: Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, lymphoma, spinal cord injuries and much more.

Millions are afflicted. And every year, every day, tragedy is visited upon families across the country, around the world. Now, it may be within our power to put an end to this suffering. We only need to try.

Some of you — some of you already know what I’m talking about when I say embryonic stem cell research. Others of you are probably thinking, that’s quite a mouthful. Maybe this is a good time to go for a tall cold one. Well, wait a minute, wait a minute.

Let me try and paint as simple a picture as I can while still doing justice to the science, the incredible science involved. Let’s say that 10 or so years from now you are diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. There is currently no cure and drug therapy, with its attendant side-effects, can only temporarily relieve the symptoms.

Now, imagine going to a doctor who, instead of prescribing drugs, takes a few skin cells from your arm. The nucleus of one of your cells is placed into a donor egg whose own nucleus has been removed. A bit of chemical or electrical stimulation will encourage your cell’s nucleus to begin dividing, creating new cells which will then be placed into a tissue culture. Those cells will generate embryonic stem cells containing only your DNA, thereby eliminating the risk of tissue rejection. These stem cells are then driven to become the very neural cells that are defective in Parkinson’s patients. And finally, those cells — with your DNA — are injected into your brain where they will replace the faulty cells whose failure to produce adequate dopamine led to the Parkinson’s disease in the first place.

In other words, you’re cured.

And another thing — another thing, these embryonic stem cells, they could continue to replicate indefinitely and, theoretically, can be induced to recreate virtually any tissue in your body.

How’d you like to have your own personal biological repair kit standing by at the hospital? Sound like magic? Welcome to the future of medicine.

Now by the way, no fetal tissue is involved in this process. No fetuses are created, none destroyed. This all happens in the laboratory at the cellular level.

Now, there are those who would stand in the way of this remarkable future, who would deny the federal funding so crucial to basic research. They argue that interfering with the development of even the earliest stage embryo, even one that will never be implanted in a womb and will never develop into an actual fetus, is tantamount to murder.

A few of these folks, needless to say, are just grinding a political axe and they should be ashamed of themselves. But many — but many — many are well-meaning and sincere. Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it. But it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many.

And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk? It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions.

Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings — that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain.

Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person — a parent, a spouse, a child.

I know a child — well, she must be 13 now — I guess I’d better call her a young woman. She has fingers and toes. She has a mind. She has memories. She has hopes. She has juvenile diabetes. Like so many kids with this disease, she’s adjusted amazingly well. The — the insulin pump she wears — she’s decorated hers with rhinestones. She can handle her own catheter needle. She’s learned to sleep through the blood drawings in the wee hours of the morning.

She’s very brave. She is also quite bright and understands full well the progress of her disease and what that might ultimately mean: blindness, amputation, diabetic coma. Every day, she fights to have a future.

What excuse will we offer this young woman should we fail her now? What might we tell her children? Or the millions of others who suffer? That when given an opportunity to help, we turned away? That facing political opposition, we lost our nerve? That even though we knew better, we did nothing?

And, should we fail, how will we feel if, a few years from now, a more enlightened generation should fulfill the promise of embryonic stem cell therapy? Imagine what they would say of us who lacked the will.

No, no, we owe this young woman and all those who suffer — we owe ourselves — better than that. We are better than that. We are a wiser people, a finer nation.

And for all of us in this fight, let me say: we will prevail. The tide of history is with us. Like all generations who have come before ours, we are motivated by a thirst for knowledge and compelled to see others in need as fellow angels on an often difficult path, deserving of our compassion.

In a few months, we will face a choice. Yes, between two candidates and two parties, but more than that. We have a chance to take a giant stride forward for the good of all humanity. We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology.

This — this is our moment, and we must not falter.

Whatever else you do come Nov. 2, I urge you, please, cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research.

Thank you for your time.

[Crimson King II]

He knows good and well what the story is, and it ain't in his words. It's like saying "make your vote one for a liberal supreme court." Clever. But when said by someone named Ronald Reagan, it's a whole different game.

[pisces2473]

Funny, he didn't mention Alzheimers...

[Crimson King II]

Embryonic stem cell research does not appear as promising for Alzheimer's to date. A small irony that Reagan neglects to speak.

[pisces2473]

Oh I didn't realize that was why it wasn't mentioned. I thought he didn't want to allude to his father at all, on purpose.

[Crimson King II]

It could be for either reason...not sure.

[lostindc]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
He said cast your vote FOR stem-cell research. That's as close as he got to saying cast your vote FOR John Kerry. But again, his appearance was the story, not the substance of what he said.

Originally posted by Crimson King II
Bush is the first President that has codified laws allowing stem-cell research, which is good...Clinton took a pass on it. Bush's position is relatively favorable.


If what you're saying about Bush's position on stem cell's is true then "a vote for stem cell research" could be a vote for either candidate.

IMO denying federal funding for stem cell research is not a favorable position towards the research. Also given how dependent the scientific community is on federal funds Bush's position has the effect of banning a lot of stem cell research.

[dietzy]

I just was reading about how local merchants and business owners around the Fleet Center in Boston can't wait for the convention to be over. Sales at most local businesses are down 50%! Combine that with all of the security measures and why would a city not want the convention in their back yard? (note the sarcasm)

[dietzy]

Oh and Crimson...you are going to love the Esquire magazine article next month with an article from Ronald Reagan Jr. He shows his true political colors according to excerpts and quotes I just read online

[dietzy]

And this is why someone cannot base their leadership credentials on one aspect of their past history (especially when it was over 30 years ago)....if that one crumbles, you are sunk. This is a major bombshell!

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc82.htm

I actually saw an interview with one of the swift boat guys on the floor of the DNC last night. The reporter from NBC was trying to get him to declare in exact terms that he was totally for Kerry and he would not do it. When asked if he thought that Kerry would be a good leader he said something along the lines of "Well he saved my life in Vietnam, but I am not sure where he stands on the issues of hand. I think he is a great guy, but where he stands on leadership for the future, I am not sure." The reporter was obviously miffed (expression on her face was obvious) thinking she was going to get a great sound bite to support the Kerry campaign. "Unsure of where he stands" is a common thing I hear from Republicans, Democrats, and Independants alike. Not a good position, IMO, when you are this close to the elections.

[MetFanL]

yeah, I was just reading that stuff, dietzy. It seems like a large number in that Swift boat picture don't support Kerry... they've even formed an organization and written a book.

I'm nervous as h*ll about this election... I may just write in my own name... I don't really support either candidate. A vote for Kerry, from my perspective, would really just be a vote against Bush.

What happened with those NASA photos? I don't get what the big deal is...

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by dietzy
I just was reading about how local merchants and business owners around the Fleet Center in Boston can't wait for the convention to be over. Sales at most local businesses are down 50%! Combine that with all of the security measures and why would a city not want the convention in their back yard? (note the sarcasm)
LOL and they said it would HELP the economy! I was living in Boston when it was announced as the site for the 2004 DNC. Then I left. My friend just emailed me saying that her husband is taking the bar exam this week in Boston and it's been hellish for him to get into the city and everything's all screwed up, especially public transportation. If I was still living up there, I would go on vacation for that week, just to escape the nonsense.

[heatherf]

Didn't the same thing happen with the Salt Lake City Olympics- all this hype like it was gonna be a huge boost for the economy, but everybody stayed away???

Crap. We all have TVs - we can watch it at home. I personally think it would be horribly scary to be in a huge public event like that....after 9/11 I honestly hate large crowds, I don't trust them.

[MetFanL]

The DNC has been insane for Boston... My friend who lives there was telling me this weekend that they removed all the trash cans off the street b/c terrorists could put bombs in them... So, the locals have been just throwing their trash where the cans used to be...

[dietzy]

The NASA photos are funny too...according to all of the articles I have read on it, the suits they wore (wore by all that were there) are to stop bacteria and contaminants from getting into the space craft. Everyone that interacts with the vessels must wear them. And NASA always takes pictures when dignataries visits so they can have them for their archives and to post on their website. So when a presidential nominee and 2 former astronauts visit, of course you take pictures.

Here is the good part though. According to the articles, the Kerry campaign asked if they could get a rush put on the photos so that they could have them available to the press as soon as possible. So he was there for political gain of course...no big deal in that, but THEY asked for the pics and knew about them. So to then come out and say that the pictures were leaked and that they were taken illegally and unethically by the Republicans to make him look silly...sorry Kerry and Kerry campaign...you did handled that one just fine on your own.

I think the major downfall here is that EVERY answer to EVERY issue and the only standing Kerry has shown for leadership and the makings of a good president is his time in Vietnam. But when you see the facts (not yet being reported by the major networks by the way....how long can they ignore the truth?) how can you use that as a legitimate reason to vote for Kerry? Or look at his actions right after the war (protests, bashing fellow soldiers, lying under oath about attrocities, saying that he himself committed atrocities) and over the last 30 years. What leadership has been shown since then? What have you done to make this country better?

Now I know I have a bias towards the Replublican side and you all know that if you have read my past posts....but is this stuff that one sided or hard for anyone to look at and go WOW! I am a pretty logical person so when you look at the whole logical picture to me...it equates to "voter beware".

[pisces2473]

I don't know what to do come November. :confused:

[MetFanL]

Good Lord... I thought he looked like an oompa-loompa in those pictures, yes, but who cares? The President just fell off a f*cking bike... he doesn't look much better.

Anyway, I gotta agree with pisces... I can't decide who I want to be president. To be quite frank, it's neither of these dudes. This is horrible...

[dietzy]

No wonder local businesses are hurt too...who goes out to eat while there? You eat in the Fleet center or you get driven out of town for a privately catered exclusive lobster dinner courtesy of some of the largest companies in the United States footing the bill. Which also makes me laugh that you can on one hand bash big business adn say they make too much money, but then in the next breath go to a private dinner with your delegates paid for by private interests and big business.

And are people spending their money on Boston souveniers or buying Kerry memorabilia inside the convention? And are people tipping well? Probably not. And can people easily even get access to the closest businesses because of the security areas and fencing?

Gotta suck to be a small business owner who thought you had a great location right near the Fleet center!

[MetFanL]

oh... and Patti Davis wrote a commentary on her brother's speech...


Shining Moment
By Patti Davis
Newsweek
There have been two times in my life when my brother Ron has made me cry. The first time was decades ago when we were young children. We were out in the backyard, and I was sitting on the grass when Ron, a cheerful toddler, cheerfully hit me over the head with one of his toy trucks. I cried, he giggled, the housekeeper yelled, “Mrs. Reagan, come quick! Ronnie hit Patti over the head with a truck!” As you can see, I have not yet gotten over the whole traumatic event.

The second time my brother brought me to tears was last night when he spoke at the Democratic convention—not the same kind of crying jag that resulted from the truck incident, but rather tears that come from a swell of pride, tears that spring straight from the heart.

There was something sweetly haunting about the cadence of his voice, the occasional tilt of his head. There was a shadow of our father there, a shadow that rustled beneath the skin of his son and made more than a few people see the resemblance. I suppose I have seen hints of that in the past—a son showing characteristics of our father, Ronald Reagan—but never as much as I saw them last night.

When a loved one dies, you try to fill up the empty space that person has left behind. You fill it up with each other. My mother, Ron and I stretch ourselves across the chasm my father left when he died. We fill it up with long conversations, with frequent visits and, most importantly, with carrying on—trying to do something in this world that will help, that will have worth and resonance. Last night my brother filled up that empty space with a fierce compassion, a pledge to further the effort of stem-cell research, a commitment to help herald in a new dawn of medicine that is nothing short of miraculous.

Our father had a unique gift of being both strong and gentle when he spoke. I don’t know if that gift can be passed down genetically, but it might be. Ron was asked in an interview about the “courage” it took for him to speak at the Democratic convention. He smiled, shook his head and said he didn’t see it as courage at all—he just believes in what he was there to talk about. He wants to make a difference, and this was a great opportunity. Our father never saw himself as brave, yet he was. That’s the thing about true courage—it’s always softened by humility.

There are obvious challenges to being the offspring of a man who has left such a huge imprint on the world. More so for a son, I think. I have thought about that over the years—and thought about it again as thousands of people lined the streets of America to express their grief over our father’s passing. I thought about the uniquely male desire of a son to fill his father’s footprints with his own. I wondered if in some corner of his heart my brother sighed a little and said, These are footprints no one else can fill. But there is this: we are the children of a man who believed that every person on this earth has a purpose and a reason for being here. He believed that no one is more important than anyone else. We are all different, and we are all special. He taught us well.

My brother has stepped forward to help in the cause that our father has left us with—a cause that can help thousands, possibly millions of people live lives free of disease.
My mother, Ron and I stood at our father’s bedside when he took his last breath. We knew we would have to go on from that day, that moment, that room that was suddenly so silent. We would have to remember all that my father taught us about making a difference in the world, and we would have to trust that if we spoke from our hearts, people would listen.

I believe my father was watching his son last night. I believe he was smiling. I think he cocked his head and said, “Well, look at that.” As children we never lose the desire to make our parents proud of us. We run away from that desire for years, until we decide to stop running. But we never lose it. My brother accomplished that last night—he made his father proud.

[pisces2473]

We need other options on who to vote for...we really need some stronger additional parties...most countries have more than 2!

[dietzy]

WOW...surprised that some of you are indecisive. I think that not voting is typically not a good idea...but then again, voting for someone that you don't really want in office or don't agree with seems to be a foolish vote as well. Probably one of my biggest complaints about the "Anyone Bue Bush" concept. Fine...if you don't agree with Bush's positions that is your right and decision. But don't go vote for some lying, wishy washy, no back bone candidate just out of default (sorry for a little bashing here...but I deleted this 3 times already and really cleaned this up!).

So what is the solution? Any thoughts? I am not sure either. Nader? YIKES. Write in vote? Don't vote?

[pisces2473]

I can't think of any solutions either...I don't think either of them should be president. And THAT? Is scary.

[Crimson King II]

Which illustrates my point. I think there are some concerns with Bush...spending needs to be controlled, and yes, Osama needs to be corralled. That said, when in doubt, we don't need to change midstream on the assumption that simply different is better or even, different (I know that sounds redundant, but by that I mean Kerry is trying SO hard to appear conservative and has twisted his positions to, at least according to what he SAYS, be very similar to Bush's, or in the alternative to go back and forth between the two. However, when conferred with representative power, his voting record in the Senate reveals he is nowhere close to Bush...he's a traditional, bona fide, Massachusetts liberal...hence, at the end of the day you have Bush, or a known liberal, unknown as a national leader, who says he'll be similar to Bush...my vote as a conservative is thus for Bush, but as a pragmatist as well, given no distinct alternative, it's for Bush also, in a willingness to "stay the course.")

[lostindc]

Originally posted by pisces2473
We need other options on who to vote for...we really need some stronger additional parties...most countries have more than 2!

I suggest a "None of the above" option (similar to that annoying choice on standardized exams). If none of the above wins all the candidates on the ballot are disqualified and a new election takes place with a completely different slate. (or the office could just be left vacant and the country will still function just fine)

The only downside I see is that all of the ads supporting 'none of the above' will most likely of the negative mudslinging variety.

[pisces2473]

Some people say to vote for Nader, and it will show that Americans are tired of the 2 party system. But I don't think that would work, either. Hmmm. :(

[Crimson King II]

So here goes. My thoughts on the Kerry speech...

First, it struck me watching it that if you look at the speeches of both Edwards and Kerry the message is "I hope help is on the way." Hmmmm.


Second, Liberalism as an ideology is apparently DEAD. Everything Kerry said last night was an effort to say, "Me too! I AM a conservative." With one single exception...his call for a tax increase, which, I must say I agree with Howard Fineman....why? It's entirely unnecessary politically, it's a threat to his very donors, AND historically it's killed candidates who've done that...um, Mondale?


Third, it was the perfect speech for President Bush to have fun with the rest of this election. He did not lay out ANY plan for Iraq or the War on Terror. He said everything contrary to his voting record. He spoke longer about the flag than he did about his service in the US Senate, and he asked America to judge him according to his RECORD (wonderful! I, for one, will be glad to do just that.)


Were I Karl Rove last night, I realize two main things. First, Kerry will look Presidential and be a formidable opponent. Second, the issues are with my candidate, not Kerry, which means many of the swing voters will break for my guy. Third, on my opponent's BEST moment, he will claim he's a conservative, but will never have the bona fides to be that, and as such, the election will be on my home court, giving me a significant advantage.


Finally, I must say, I also saw the 92 Clinton speech on CSPAN. I ALWAYS loved the line, "I still believe in a place called Hope." I love American political theater. We know how to do it. And, does anyone want to know the best line of the Democratic convention:

"I don't need Michael Moore and John Kerry to tell me about 9/11." Who said it? Rudy Giuliani. Very nice, Mr. Mayor.

[pisces2473]

Rudy for President in 2008! :) If he's a Republican, why was he at the DNC?

I was humored by Kerry's speech. I kept thinking I was in a lit class and discussing themes and imagery. I mean, there they are in Boston, the cradle of America's revolution, he's from Boston, blah blah blah, I rode my bike into Soviet Berlin, etc. It was a lot of fluff. I was IMing with PaperJam the whole time and we were making fun of him.

HELP IS ON THE WAY--reminded me of cultish behavior.

[Crimson King II]

Rudy and others were there as part of the Rep. war room/rapid response team. Glad you guys thought there was some fluff there, too.

[pisces2473]

Oh my god, CK, it was such a joke (the fluff). It was like, cut the bullshit already.

[Crimson King II]

Exactly. I've been saying that since the primaries.

[Crimson King II]

And who knew Kerry was in Vietnam???

[pisces2473]

He was????? Wait, is he the same guy who won 3 purple hearts? :p

[paperjam1015]

I was watching on NBC and thought it was devilishly funny when they intorduced the ex-GA governor as "A vietnam vet who lost his arm and legs"

WTF?? He just lost them?? HE woke up one morning...Damn I KNOW I had an arm and two legs when I went to sleep last night.

And they just discounted his politial history. Just he was in Vietnam and is friends with Kerry.... because if a disabled Vet likes him so should you!

[pisces2473]

Remember? "Hey, who's that fat guy?" LOL

(Not governor--he was a senator.)

Most veterans vote Republican, so that's why Kerry overemphasizes the fact that he was in a war. YAY for you.

[Crimson King II]

Cleland is a GREAT guy. I met him when I worked in DC when he was in the Senate and I was working for another Congressman for Georgia. But he's entirely bitter because he was beaten in his re-election bid and has abandoned any conviction he had. I WISH the Reps parade all the swiftboat vets who are opposing Kerry...far more than those supporting him, which is telling, I think.

[libscigrl]

I understand that Kerry is not Clinton, he's not the ideal. And there are a hell of a lot of people who voted for Bush in 2000, and his brother in 2002. People who hold certain religious beliefs to their core, I'm guessing, and like me are not likely to change their political beliefs.

But for those on the fence, while I understand (and agree with) the desire for a viable 3rd option, THIS ELECTION IS NOT IT! It's either Bush or Kerry, and while it is far from the right thing to vote without strong conviction for your choice, I feel it is MUCH worse to not vote at all, particularly in this election. Certainly each of the last few elections have been touted as Highly Important, but this time I feel that label really is more true than ever.

Pisces and others who aren't yet sure who they're voting for: isn't there an issue that elicits a visceral reaction from you, for which one of the candidates shares your position? Education? Abortion? Environment? Your wallet? Health care? SOMEthing??

Perhaps it is the fact that aside from particular issues I care about, I am not a particularly political person. Perhaps I am simply blinded by my own ideology. But I just don't F-ing get it. From what I've seen on this board thus far I must be in the minority, so please, enlighten me.

Edit: I know, I'm gonna get eaten for breakfast, but I couldn't resist. Btw, how and when did liberal become a dirty word?

[pisces2473]

You're still cool w/ me :)

I've thought about what you suggested, take an issue of deep personal interest on vote with that in mind. And that means I'm voting for Kerry, even if I don't really like him 100%. But that's how I felt in 2000, and I voted for Gore.

edit--I have issues I care deeply about, but I'm not that politically minded, a la CK ;)

[paperjam1015]

Education? Abortion? Environment? Your wallet? Health care? SOMEthing??

The problem is that there are so many important issues. If you pick one it's like saying the others don't count.

I want a balanced candidate and I don't think I'll find one.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by paperjam1015
The problem is that there are so many important issues. If you pick one it's like saying the others don't count.

I want a balanced candidate and I don't think I'll find one.
Yes, that's how I feel.

[dietzy]

Happy to see that I was not the only one howling in laughter last night! The word pictures Kerry tried to present about his parents and riding his bike, etc just seemed really out of place and uninmportant. Couldn't you use that limited time you had to speak in a more effective manor?

Crimson...I too was SHOCKED when he said that we should look at his record. I started invisioning at least a dozen different commercials that start with a video clip of him saying that at the DNC followed by details of his voting record over the last 20 years...against 2nd amendment, for taxes, against supporting our troops, against Iraq and then for it and then against it, against big business except in cases where it benefits him and his millions (did you know that Kerry is the wealthiest person to EVER run for President) no major initiatives to make America better...etc etc

I find it most amazing that he can go on and on about how he will fight terrorism and yet he didn't even take the time to read the recent terror report released and admitted it when asked about it.

Side note...Do you remember how we were CONSTANTLY hearing about the 9/11 commission and their work and the hearings and the finding. The report is done and out now, right? Are any of you hearing ANY details from the mainstream media about what is in it? It seems like all of a sudden there is no talk about it other than that Bush is not acting fast enough to put it all into practice. Does the report not say what some thought or wanted it to say? Not sure, I have not read it, but curious about this.

[libscigrl]

Cool :) I know some people feel one should not let thier issues decide their vote, but their fiscal positions as well or more, but I think most people vote on those gut reaction issues (especially right now).

I'm actually not normally very politically minded, but since so many things I care about are in such jeopardy, I'm suddenly very interested--or at least as interested as I can be. But in some ways I am glad there are people who aren't blinded by their ideologies/positions--as I think they hold the most potential for helping the rest of us find common ground.

On the 3rd party viability issue: while it is far from viable in the near future, anyone have ideas as to how it could become viable at some point? For as long as my core values are in jeopardy I have a difficult time imagining myself voting for a 3rd party candidate--unless it meant undermining the Rep candidate's viability. How do others feel? Is it possible?

[libscigrl]

Originally posted by paperjam1015
The problem is that there are so many important issues. If you pick one it's like saying the others don't count.

I want a balanced candidate and I don't think I'll find one.

Good point. I will admit it is easier to pick a candidate when he seems to lean toward one's own views on more than one important issue.

[pisces2473]

What makes it most difficult is when candidates don't even stick to their OWN issues!

[libscigrl]

True.

[Crimson King II]

Libsci....I love it....when did Liberal become a dirty word? I don't know, but John Kerry sure is running away from it. I would love for him to stand up and claim the term as his own. That would be a great election. But no...instead he’s doing all he can to avoid his own liberal voting record and convince people that he is, even a little bit, conservative. And people will see through it.

[pisces2473]

As a moderate, I don't really care if Kerry is liberal or conservative...I feel sorry for those who CANNOT see through the mirage.

[libscigrl]

CK--I see what you're saying and don't deny that he's presenting an image that is probably more moderate or even conservative than he really is. But my understanding is that is part of what politics are about: presenting the most inclusive, moderate image so as to attract as wide an audience as possible. While normally the references to God and spirituality would make me want to puke, I personally took it as doing what is necessary to win. I certainly wish that a highly and unabashedly liberal candidate could get elected as such, with no pandering to the conservative leaning swing voters. But if that was possible, I think it would have been Kucinich or Gephart accepting the Dem nomination instead of Kerry. I could be wrong--I make no claim of having intimate knowledge of Kerry's voting record. What about "compassionate conservatism"? Isn't that just a Rep version of the same thing--wearing a bipartisan coat over a highly partisan body? Is Bush going to be completely honest and not try just as hard to pursuade liberal leaning swing voters to choose him? What am I missing here?

[Crimson King II]

He will not run from the word "conservative."

[libscigrl]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
He will not run from the word "conservative."

I don't have any examples, so I'll have to take your word for it. I'll certainly give you that the Dems DO have a lot of progress to make in the way of more effectively vilifying the other side (i.e., how about conservatism as a dirty word?) and presenting an image of really standing for something other than "Not Bush" or "Not Reps." What can I say, whether Kerry comes right out and uses the word liberal or not, knowing he is gives me enough reason to vote for him. But still, on using the word, I think he'd alienate too many people. As honest as that would be, I don't think it would be very smart or realistic in terms of making himself a viable opponent. So, as right as you might be regarding Kerry's use (or lack thereoff) of the word liberal, I think its kind of moot.

[Crimson King II]

It's not moot insofar as it's pragmatism. Either he's a "liberal" and he loses because Americans reject liberalism...which is the concern, or he's dishonest and claims conservatism and dupes the people into supporting him. So he either doesn't share the values of those he wants to support him, or he tells them he does, knowing he doesn't.

Bush embraces conservatism, he claims himself a "compassionate conservative," and attempts to place himself side by side with Reagan, THE modern conservative. All Kerry does is RUN from his voting record, which is side by side with that of Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton...even to the left of those two.

[dietzy]

I was just recalling something Kerry said toward the end of his speach last night and I was curious what everyone thought. Toward the end he threw out a challenge to Bush to play fair, stop the politics, and run a "clean" race. Do you think he really wanted this? Do you think he is willing to do the same? Did he do the same in his speach last night? What is considered clean? I know in the past just pointing out the truth or past voting record was considered slimey or underhanded or fighting dirty.

[dietzy]

I was wondering why it seemed to take so long...and why they were only in certain areas of the arena at the end of Kerry's speach...I just saw this and since it fit the post and was kind of funny I thought I would post it here...expletives have ben removed to protect those with virgin ears. :-)


DNC CONVENTION DIRECTOR DON MISCHER AIRED ON CNN AS KERRY ENDS SPEECH, HEARD WORLDWIDE:

'Go balloons, go balloons! Go balloons! I don't see anything happening. Go balloons! Go balloons! Go balloons! Standby confetti. Keep coming, balloons. More balloons. Bring it- balloons, balloons, balloons! We want balloons, tons of them. Bring them down. Let them all come. No confetti. No confetti yet.

'No confetti. All right, go balloons, go balloons. We need more balloons. All balloons! All balloons! Keep going! Come on, guys, lets move it. Jesus! We need more balloons. I want all balloons to go, goddammit. Go confetti. Go confetti. More confetti. I want more balloons. What's happening to the balloons? We need more balloons.

'We need all of them coming down. Go balloons- balloons? What's happening balloons? There's not enough coming down! All balloons, what the hell! There's nothing falling! What the f$%& are you guys doing up there? We want more balloons coming down, more balloons. More balloons. More balloons'...

[pisces2473]

I heard about it this morning...but I thought someone would have posted it by now. LOLOLOL

[and1grad]

Exactly what does the coordinating of balloons & confetti have to do with ANYTHING?

Anyway, I thought it interesting how Kerry is getting bashed for how he tries to get in office knowing that thats how Bush got himself elected in the first place. I'M LIKE MY DADDY. And of course he's not gonna shy away from conservatism. That would be political suicide in this stretch. He's got the nomination already. Its also interesting to me how our Repub friends say that Reagan was so good at appealing to liberals, and this made him great, but when Kerry tries to appeal to conservatives, he's automatically disingenuous. Oh, he might not do what he says he's gonna do...wow...thats NEVER happened before.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by and1grad
Exactly what does the coordinating of balloons & confetti have to do with ANYTHING?
It's the fact that he dropped the F bomb on TV, lol.

[pisces2473]

WB, what is it w/ you and songs today??

[libscigrl]

Originally posted by and1grad
Anyway, I thought it interesting how Kerry is getting bashed for how he tries to get in office knowing that thats how Bush got himself elected in the first place. I'M LIKE MY DADDY. And of course he's not gonna shy away from conservatism. That would be political suicide in this stretch. He's got the nomination already. Its also interesting to me how our Repub friends say that Reagan was so good at appealing to liberals, and this made him great, but when Kerry tries to appeal to conservatives, he's automatically disingenuous. Oh, he might not do what he says he's gonna do...wow...thats NEVER happened before.

Thanks And1Grad, you read my mind :)

[Crimson King II]

and1...you're entirely off base with a parallel of Kerry to Reagan. Reagan won two huge landslides, including 49 states in 1984, but never once did he shy away from his past record, nor did he ever portray himself as a liberal, or even very moderate. Reagan won the South twice because of conservative democrats, of whom only Zell Miller appears to still be alive. It's one thing when your record and positions appeal to members of all parties and the center. It's quite another to simply attempt to persuade them it is so when it is knowingly to the contrary. Kerry is a liberal, he repeatedly has acted and voted like a liberal, and only now, on convention night, does he portray himself as a wannabe-conservative and run as far away from his nature and his record as possible. So, yeah, I guess if you take any conviction and honesty out of the comparison, then Reagan and Kerry are very much alike. Otherwise, it's not even in the same realm.

Such could not happen today, because all the conservative Dems have left the party. It's a bastion of liberalism, and Kerry isn't going to lead them back to the right, or even to the center.

Moreover, I find it sad that the left is so happy to elect someone they KNOW is lying, all the while railing against the President because he's a liar. Please. That's intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

[and1grad]

If I assume that the left is lying, does that mean the right is the truth?

Are you really saying that Reagan was a pillar of truth?

So, now that Kerry has attempted to appeal to the right, does he now have a stance? Earlier posts would suggest, he does not, even though u say he's clearly liberal.

I find it sad that the right is so happy to elect someone they KNOW is lying, all the while railing against Kerry because he's a liar. Please. That's intellectual dishonesty at its best.

I also thought this was interesting: http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Fitreps

[libscigrl]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
Moreover, I find it sad that the left is so happy to elect someone they KNOW is lying, all the while railing against the President because he's a liar. Please. That's intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

Me <------ Soooo NOOOT "happy to elect someone I know is lying"--I would frankly be shocked if a politician was proven to never have lied in office. Willing though, to elect someone who would lie about being a conservative (I missed the time(s) when Kerry has specifically used the word conservative to describe himself, though) over someone who would lie about the environment and his reasons for going into war.

Hell F-ing yes it is awful to vote for the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't mean I should vote or help elect what I consider the much worse of two evils either. "Oh, the ideal option is not available. Hmm I guess I'll just vote for the guy I really DON'T want in office. Or not vote at all, which would effectively be doing the same"

Ideal and reality just aren't the same.

[Crimson King II]

You know what....it's not even worth it. Reagan said he was for tax cuts, and enacted tax cuts. He said he was for significant defense and an end to the cold war, and he worked toward both of those ends. The only major promise he failed at was deficit reduction, but his policy was sound---revenues increased throughout his term in office, yet he could not stop Congress' spending and preserve tax cuts and budget agreements.


Kerry says I'm for the war, but now I'm not. I voted for it, but then I voted against it. I'm calling for a tax increase, but I will lower taxes. Judge me by my record, but listen to the crickets as I don't talk about my record in the Senate. Reagan was a giant of the landscape for many people on both sides of the aisle. Kerry is an afterthought who's been on the wrong side of history throughout his career.


The ticket on the right has taken its position, and the left calls it a lie. The left then simultaneously gives Kerry a pass for sounding the same siren song that the President did in 2003. They won't even go so far as to say his position changed, somehow saying it was consistent with the exact opposite words he said then. You're right, Kerry's never "said" he's a conservative...duh...let's not cede the playing field and let Bush say, "Oh, no you're not." But here's what he DOES say...I'm strong on defense (never mind all of my votes against defense)...I'm for tax cuts (never mind my simultaneous call for increases AND all my votes against tax cuts)...I'm against the current policy in Iraq(never mind that I have none of my own, and all of my suggestions thus far are nearly identical to those on the right)...judge me on my record (but I'm denying it's a liberal one).

[cheshrcarol]

I know most of us would prefer a 3rd party candidate, but PLEASE don't vote for Nader! If you're liberal enough to vote for him (assuming you're voting because you like his platform, not just to make a statement) you will be helping to ensure Bush wins. As much as the choices may not be ideal, I'd rather make my vote count then throw it away on someone who will never win.

[Crimson King II]

And I'd say don't vote against Bush simply because you don't like him. At least know why you don't like him and consider the policy implications and the time we live in, and then hold both candidates to the same standard. When this country was founded, its creators valued reason, civic duty, and a little bit of work in setting our path. If you don't like the policy, at least be versed in it and understand what policy you'd prefer, or envision an alternative. But don't condemn the man because of some emotional reflex. We're a better nation than that.

[heatherf]

Actually CK, I don't think we are a better nation than that. I think practically everything this nation does is based upon "emotional reflex", in both good and bad ways. And what moral compass is better than one's own true gut instinct/feelings?

[Crimson King II]

Then this 228 year old experiment has failed.

[Crimson King II]

When we no longer value reason and the effort required for advanced citizenship, we have failed. Jefferson abhorred the role emotion played in life, and envisioned a society based upon reason, faith, and deliberation. We've lost that. Everything from the revolutionary period was a design to steer away from our instinct and our gut reactions in favor of a free, rational, and reasoned society. When that's gone, America will be too.

[pisces2473]

Okay then...so who DO you vote for? Or is it better to just stay at home?

[heatherf]

Well, I guess that's what happens when some old white guys in power decide that they should let white men vote!!!!!

I'm pretty sure that the voter registration form doesn't have little boxes to check that say:

-I will be an informed voter
-I am well educated
-I will read up on all the issues all the time


Maybe I filled out the wrong one? DRAT!

[Crimson King II]

Look at the policy, understand it as well, look forward to the goal, look at intellectual integrity, be wary of blind ambition, remain true to our heritage and history, our original ideals, and understand the role of America throughout history.

[Crimson King II]

Has nothing to do with race heather. But yeah, voters should be informed. But even if not, emotions should not rule the day...otherwise we're merely malleable to the latest gimmick, fad, or marketing ploy. Another concern of Jefferson, et al.

[heatherf]

So which candidate is for slavery??? (original ideal)- he's got my vote!!!!

Oh and I'm for the one who make sure that we, as Americans, will always give our soldiers our beds for the night when they are busy fightin' the wars on our blocks......

[Crimson King II]

Have you ever read Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison? They were consistently anti-slavery. Slavery is not an ideal...it is a policy. It was a necessarily protected one which ensured strength of union. That statement is a kennard.

Brake, Jefferson and Adams both realized the procedure of legality had limits, which caused them to find resolve in public service. Moreover, as government goes, there is no scientific measure. As such, I don't grant your premise that science is the tool by which to do so.

[heatherf]

ahhh but actions are quite different from their written word....

and CK, you said it yourself that our society should be based on, among other things, "reason and faith".....allowing one TO vote based FAITH. Faith is a FEELING.

[cheshrcarol]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
When we no longer value reason and the effort required for advanced citizenship, we have failed. Jefferson abhorred the role emotion played in life, and envisioned a society based upon reason, faith, and deliberation. We've lost that. Everything from the revolutionary period was a design to steer away from our instinct and our gut reactions in favor of a free, rational, and reasoned society. When that's gone, America will be too. The founding fathers may have intended the laws to be impartial, but have the American people ever been? It is human nature to have an emotional response. Was the election of Washington a purely rational response? How about the fact that the American people begged him to stay in office past his 8 years? That wasn't as much a rational, reason-free response, they liked him. He did make the reasoned decision not to continue since he felt it would be better for the country.

And just because emotions may be a factor in our decision-making process, does that mean the decision is automatically wrong? The actions of politicians are not just numbers of votes tallied on paper, they are direct impacts on human lives. How can we not have at least some emotion in the decision to choose those politicians?

[Crimson King II]

Faith in the sense of belief in purpose...not religious faith. Just read Jefferson some. We created a nation on the ideals of freedom, and the faith that reason would guide us properly. Jefferson built a life, career, and much of a nation on the premise that emotion has NO role in civics.

[Crimson King II]

But see, you make my point. Washington's emotion was cast aside because of his belief that two terms was plenty, despite the warmth he felt from the love of his nation. His election was secured by those founders who knew that only Washington could give credibility to a young nation because of his...reason. No, emotion does not mean the decision is wrong per se, but it does maximize the susceptibility to error.

[cheshrcarol]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
Have you ever read Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison? They were consistently anti-slavery. Jefferson, Washington and Madison were so "consistently anti-slaverly" except for their own slaves?

[heatherf]

But a vote is not right/wrong, it cannot be considered an error.

[cheshrcarol]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
But see, you make my point. Washington's emotion was cast aside because of his belief that two terms was plenty, despite the warmth he felt from the love of his nation. His election was secured by those founders who knew that only Washington could give credibility to a young nation because of his...reason. Yes, exactly my point. Washington may have been completely rational in his decision, the the American people were not. And I don't think we have ever been. In fact, I think that is one of our greatest stregths, without emotion there is no compassion, no mercy, no desire to help others.

[heatherf]

I do too Carol. And I think that practically every other nation in the world depends upon (and also suffers from) our compassion.

[Crimson King II]

As for the men and slaves, they were consistently, in belief and word, against the institution of slavery, and believed it would and should be abolished.

And heather, the actions vs. words argument is again a kennard. What happens in 1776 if slaves are freed? Well, the southern states don't sign the declaration...the southern economy is ruined...a revolutionary army cannot be raised...and the public and private sectors collapse under the weight of a new electorate that until that time had no access to any resources, civic authority, or financial support.

The people who elected Washington very much WERE reasonable people, because then the electoral college were not bound by the popular vote of the states. Elections were way different then.

How does reason not equate to compassion or mercy. That's so bogus. Reason in pursuit of freedom will only advance humanity. You think reason in the 1700s did not lead to a golden age of freedom, liberty, equality, and justice? No greater compassion and mercy has ever been shown the world.

[heatherf]

Ck you are arguing in hypotheticals....what ifs.

And I personally just don't think that reason necessarily IS equated with passion and mercy. I guess that I'd rather see Civility equated with passion and mercy and I wish that our government wanted to operate on that premise.

[cheshrcarol]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
As for the men and slaves, they were consistently, in belief and word, against the institution of slavery, and believed it would and should be abolished.
So wait, you dislike Kerry because, among other things, he says one thing and his actions (voting record) are contradictory. But for Jefferson, Washington and Madison, it's their words about anti-slavery that matter, not their actions in acutally OWNING slaves?

[Crimson King II]

It was an economic impracticality to free one's slaves. They each explained that in their writings and then Washington did actually free his slaves, as did Jefferson in his will. Adams was a northerner and didn't own slaves.

Kerry simply lies because it's politically expedient, nor does he have a record that even suggests he'd do what he says. The comparisons to the Founders are nonexistent.