<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1141" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #008000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=nathanne@nathannewman.org
href="mailto:nathanne@nathannewman.org">Nathan Newman</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
href="mailto:lbo-talk@lists.panix.com">lbo-talk@lists.panix.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March 29, 2003 3:28
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Daschle eats his words, and
then some</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: R<BR>-why do we still ignore the
fact that gore/lieberman threw the 2000<BR>election?<BR><BR>Bad legal strategy
is not "throwing an election"</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>yes it is. you're
hiding behind lawyers? can't you do better than
that?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>-- he could have conceded a<BR>month earlier. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>why didn't he? he
eventually conceded anyway. the fact he won the election didn't
seem to make a dent.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Why assume malevolence when incompetence is
sufficient<BR>explanation?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>incompetence is not
sufficient. it never is. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT><FONT face=Georgia
color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT><FONT face=Georgia
color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>incompetence explains why they
were nominated; incompetence explains why they threw the election;
incompetence makes excuses for them now. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>malevolence lies in making
excuses for them; malevolence lies in hiding the truth behind shallow
generalities like "bad legal advice."</FONT></DIV><FONT face=Georgia
color=#008000 size=2></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT><BR><BR>-why do we still
ignore the fact that not one senator, including the great<BR>white hope Paul
Wellstone,<BR>-signed the -petitions of the black caucus?<BR><BR>Because they
cut a deal on control of committees that flipped control to<BR>the Democrats
once Jeffords jumped, </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>right. politicians never go
back on a deal, do they.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>thereby blocking rightwing judges for<BR>two years, blocking Bush's
second tax cut of December 2001, blocking the<BR>bankruptcy bill, and a longer
list that I've posted before. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>So they<BR>avoided a useless symbolic vote on the election in favor of
real power.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>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.</FONT><BR><BR>-why do we ignore the
votes in favor of the patriot act and of allowing<BR>shrub to wage
war?<BR><BR>The final vote on the Patriot Act was craven, </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>only craven?
not politics as usual? not representative of today's DLC, right
wing democratic party right down the line?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>but anyone who followed the<BR>amendments up to final passage know there
were serious partisan divisions<BR>on a range of votes. Why ignore all
those votes?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>the actions of these incompetents
lead directly to the iraq war, just to mention one of the
penalties.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>no response to my comment about
scalia's statement?</FONT></DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#008000
size=2></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #008000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT
face=Georgia color=#008000 size=2>R </FONT>
<DIV><BR><BR>-- Nathan Newman<BR><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From:
Nathan Newman<BR>To: <A
href="mailto:lbo-talk@lists.panix.com">lbo-talk@lists.panix.com</A><BR>Sent:
Saturday, March 29, 2003 12:03 PM<BR>Subject: Re: Daschle eats his words, and
then some<BR><BR><BR><BR>I'm not sure what you expect- Daschle is from one of
the more conservative<BR>states and still denounced Bush's failures and has
only apologized for the<BR>timing of his remarks. Daschle hasn't even been a
particularly strong<BR>antiwar person-- he voted for the resolution last
fall-- so what's the<BR>point?<BR><BR>We do this game all the time-- ignore
the two-thirds of House Dems who<BR>voted against authorization for war,
ignore Gore's denunciation of the war<BR>leadup, downplay critical remarks on
the war even from Dems who voted for<BR>the fall resolution-- then claim, see
there is no difference.<BR><BR>-- Nathan<BR><BR>----- Original Message
-----<BR>From: "Doug Henwood" <<A
href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com">dhenwood@panix.com</A>><BR><BR><BR>[So
Nathan, can you tell us how this is anything but revolting?]<BR><BR>Daschle
Says His Iraq Criticism of Bush Ill-Timed<BR>Fri Mar 28, 6:52 PM
ET<BR><BR>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Tom
Daschle<BR>labels as ill-timed his charge that President Bush (news - web
sites)<BR>"failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to
war."<BR><BR>Daschle said in Washington on March 17: "I'm saddened, saddened
that<BR>this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now
forced<BR>to war." He voiced his criticism just hours before the president
gave<BR>Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) an ultimatum to leave Iraq (news
-<BR>web sites) in 48 hours or face a U.S.-led invasion.<BR><BR>"I don't think
the timing of those comments were necessarily the<BR>best," Daschle was quoted
as telling reporters from his home state of<BR>South Dakota on Thursday. "I
had no idea when I said them what the<BR>timing of the military operation
would be." A Daschle aide on Friday<BR>confirmed the senator's
remarks.<BR><BR>In response to a wave of Republican criticism, Daschle said
the next<BR>day he stood by his remarks. A Daschle aide said on Friday
the<BR>senator still stands by them.<BR><BR>In speaking with South Dakota
reporters on Thursday, Daschle saluted<BR>Bush's execution of the war as well
as the U.S. troops fighting it.<BR><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>