----- Original Message -----
From: Nathan Newman
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Daschle eats his words, and then some
----- Original Message -----
From: R
-why do we still ignore the fact that gore/lieberman threw the 2000
election?
Bad legal strategy is not "throwing an election"
yes it is. you're hiding behind lawyers? can't you do better than that?
-- he could have conceded a
month earlier.
why didn't he? he eventually conceded anyway. the fact he won the election didn't seem to make a dent.
Why assume malevolence when incompetence is sufficient
explanation?
who said anything about malevolence? gore and lieberman are two wonderful guys, caring, unselfish, dedicated. a credit to their party and their nation. not a blemish on their characters. role models for the world. even at their incompetent best, they're an inspiration. these dedicated fellows always have the nation's interests at heart. they chose becoming career politicians so they could serve the people. principled men, loaded with integrity.
incompetence is not sufficient. it never is.
putting the shrub group in power is only incompetence? who are you kidding. the ripple effect of what you seek to pass off as incompetence is disasterous; it's getting people killed. it's murderous.
accepting jim crow elections in florida and tennessee isn't malevolent? oh, i forgot; gore is a dixiecrat. he's not malevolent; he's patriotic. he represents his constituents (the vocal racist majority of them) because he's principled.
incompetence explains why they were nominated; incompetence explains why they threw the election; incompetence makes excuses for them now.
malevolence lies in making excuses for them; malevolence lies in hiding the truth behind shallow generalities like "bad legal advice."
-why do we still ignore the fact that not one senator, including the great
white hope Paul Wellstone,
-signed the -petitions of the black caucus?
Because they cut a deal on control of committees that flipped control to
the Democrats once Jeffords jumped,
right. politicians never go back on a deal, do they.
thereby blocking rightwing judges for
two years, blocking Bush's second tax cut of December 2001, blocking the
bankruptcy bill, and a longer list that I've posted before.
so what? who won the off year election? who's running congress and the white house now? who's leading the democrats around by their noses.
So they
avoided a useless symbolic vote on the election in favor of real power.
cutting deals with crypto fascists is real power? since when doesn't cutting deals cut both ways? cutting deals is a shallow excuse for failure. politicians in the pocket of the rich and MNCs cutting deals with one another is exactly what the US doesn't need, ever.
-why do we ignore the votes in favor of the patriot act and of allowing
shrub to wage war?
The final vote on the Patriot Act was craven,
only craven? not politics as usual? not representative of today's DLC, right wing democratic party right down the line?
but anyone who followed the
amendments up to final passage know there were serious partisan divisions
on a range of votes. Why ignore all those votes?
because they were meaningless and symbolic only. they lost; the american people lost. politicians routinely make meaningless gestures like this for PR purposes when they know how the final vote will turn out. no deals were cut. nothing. just the screwing of the nation, thanks to politicians voting their pocket books, and knowing what to kiss and when.
the actions of these incompetents lead directly to the iraq war, just to mention one of the penalties.
no response to my comment about scalia's statement?
R
-- Nathan Newman
----- Original Message -----
From: Nathan Newman
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Daschle eats his words, and then some
I'm not sure what you expect- Daschle is from one of the more conservative
states and still denounced Bush's failures and has only apologized for the
timing of his remarks. Daschle hasn't even been a particularly strong
antiwar person-- he voted for the resolution last fall-- so what's the
point?
We do this game all the time-- ignore the two-thirds of House Dems who
voted against authorization for war, ignore Gore's denunciation of the war
leadup, downplay critical remarks on the war even from Dems who voted for
the fall resolution-- then claim, see there is no difference.
-- Nathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
[So Nathan, can you tell us how this is anything but revolting?]
Daschle Says His Iraq Criticism of Bush Ill-Timed
Fri Mar 28, 6:52 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle
labels as ill-timed his charge that President Bush (news - web sites)
"failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war."
Daschle said in Washington on March 17: "I'm saddened, saddened that
this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced
to war." He voiced his criticism just hours before the president gave
Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) an ultimatum to leave Iraq (news -
web sites) in 48 hours or face a U.S.-led invasion.
"I don't think the timing of those comments were necessarily the
best," Daschle was quoted as telling reporters from his home state of
South Dakota on Thursday. "I had no idea when I said them what the
timing of the military operation would be." A Daschle aide on Friday
confirmed the senator's remarks.
In response to a wave of Republican criticism, Daschle said the next
day he stood by his remarks. A Daschle aide said on Friday the
senator still stands by them.
In speaking with South Dakota reporters on Thursday, Daschle saluted
Bush's execution of the war as well as the U.S. troops fighting it.
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030329/bebde234/attachment.htm>