While I'm enjoying the political debate and the (mostly) friendly exchange of ideas and philosophies in the thread below, I wanted to apologize for my initial remark re:  "Fuckin' morons"...

It was posted tongue-in-cheek, but I later realized that it was over the line, and I'm sorry for that.  I though about deleting it, but by that time it had taken on a life of it's own in many of the replies, and I didn't want to disrupt the continuity of the threads, so I did apologize in a few of my replies, but I wanted to do it here in a seperate message.

Most of you who know me know that I try to conduct myself in a gentlemanly fashion, and my, on retrospect, poor attempt at humor isn't typical of my style.   So again, my intention wasn't to insult anyone...

My frustration regarding the current state of political awareness wasn't directed specifically toward California, but to all voters throughout the U.S.  As the benchmark of Democracy, I find it sad that we have the lowest voter turnout in the world, and it seems that we are the least politically informed people in the free world as well.   We are influenced by celebrity and money, and usually enter the voting booth knowing little or nothing about the majority of names on the tickets beyond, and sometimes including, the major races and candidates..

I fear that eventually it's going to come back and bite us all on the ass.

PS - for anyone interested in subjects like this, I'd reccomend reading "The Future of Freedom - Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad", by Fareed Zakaria, an Indian born American who is the Editor of the International edition of Newsweek magazine.  It's an informative (and disturbing), politically neutral examination of where this country is going, both domestically and internationally, the impact of Western constitutional principles on the global order, and the crises of democracy that iie ahead.  The excerpts regarding California's referendums was a small part of a fascinating look at the rise and fall of Ca. as the county's political barometer, and an example of democracy run amok.

Hey Ed....if we were a true democracy then Al Gore would be president,
heaven forbid...we are a republic...but your comment about Americans
in general being morons is actually quite true...I'm in the second half of my life but I didn't even pay attention to anything political until I hit my 30's...I think that MOST of us have general opinions by what we hear on the radio and see on tv...read a newspaper???...uh...I don't think so...
most people don't read about opinions left or right...they rely on sight and sound....in a country of nearly 300,000,000, say about  1/2 (?) will
be qualified to vote...but not qualified to vote, if you get my drift...so
out of 150,000,000, maybe 40,000,000 turn out to vote in a national election...some democracy...we are a spoiled, complacent, apathetic,
nation...but the heart of America, when it's needed, really shines...I would not want to live anywhere else in the world...with all our warts...

We should all thank our own God that his were do little years....

Fast One, you have nothing to apologize for. Actually, I will be circulating a petition which mandates everyone who voted for Gov. Terminator be made to legally change their name to Beavis or Butthead.

I couldn't agree more. Without a doubt, we're heading toward one party rule. I really want to be angrier about this, but the people of California have spoken and they're going to get the governor they deserve.

Anyone who thought Clinton was a bad President obviously was in a coma from 1992-2000.

Let's see, under Clinton the economy boomed, we had a surplus, unemployment was low, there was a worldwide movement toward peaceful resolutions of disputes, we had a President who could intelligently answer a question, and we had the admiration of most of the world.  With Bush we have an enormous tax giveaway to the wealthiest, corporate scandals, record deficits, arrogant foreign policy designed to alienate all of our allies, poor markets, high unemployment, and a President who can't put a sentence together.  Granted, 9/11 was a terrible blow, but Bush's utter stupidity (calling our war against terrorism a "crusade" thereby alienating the Arab friends we had), arrogance (believing that backward Arab countries would jump at the chance to be like us, instead of seeing us as foreign occupiers) and greed (eliminating the estate tax which would create an idiot power elite, no bid billion dollar contracts to his buddies) has caused damage which will take decades to reverse.  Hopefully our national embarrassment will be over soon.

Don't say he didn't do anything......Oral Sex is now officially not cheating.....

We are giving to much credit and too much blame to both Clinton and Bush.(I know most of you won't agrre with me) Most of our ecomonic problems of today can be directly related to oversite of the stock exchange and corporations.  The corparate scandales all occured while Clinton was in office.  Was he to blame for them, I think not.  The Budget surpluses that everyone proclaimed would go on forever, always were a pipe dream.  A good deal of the excess tax dollars came from capital gains tsxes of stocks and stock options sold.  They should never been considered funds that will continue year after year.  If we had taking care of Bin ladin afrer the Cole and the two embassy bombings in africa it is posible that 9/11 may never have occured, but our politicians and our country did not have the moral courage to step up the the plate at that time.

Clinton did nothing (except stay out of the way) to make the economy 'boom'. The last President who had a major effect on the economy was Reagan. After the Carter years (not all his fault - oil embargoes and Iran hostage crisis weren't his fault any more than 9/11 was Bush's) Reagan increased federal spending and cut taxes, thus reviving a dead economy. And before Reagan, it was FDR.

Hmmm. Reagan promised to balance the budget and then gave us the eight largest deficits in history -- until the two Bushes surpassed him. He also promised to reduce the size of the federal government, but instead increased it by 50%. The biggest increase, by the way, was in the White House staff.

  Clinton then balances the budget, gives us a surplus, reduces the size of the federal bureaucracy, creates 50 million new jobs, etc., etc., etc.

   However, under the official Republican revisionist history of the world, the Reagan years are responsible for the Clinton boom and the Clinton years are responsible for the Bush II disaster. Shrub will be the first President since Hoover (another Republican) to have a net loss of jobs under his administration, bankruptcies are at a 20-year high despite passing laws making it harder to declare bankruptcy, home foreclosures are at a 30 year high, the market is down 1500 points, 47 states have budget deficits, the federal government will have a record deficit, and we don't have a clue as to how to extricate ourselves from Iraq. Remember when we were told that Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction of Iraq? Now, we are asked for another $85 billion, most of which will go to Halliburton and other Bush/Cheney cronies, because we overestimated to amount the oilfields would produce by more than $100 Billion per year since our estimates did not take into account the damage and sabotage to those fields by Saddam. Did anyone remember him burning the Kuwaiti oil wells? This is the most inept group since Laurel & Hardy -- and they only pretended to be dumb.

   Republicans talk a lot about taking personal responsibility, but somehow when it comes to talking about Presidents, their answer is that the prior disastrous Republican administrations are responsible for the economic booms under Democratic Presidents while the Democratic policies are the reasons thatsubsequent Republican Presidencies are economica disasters. The last Republican President to have a healthy economy was Eisenhower.

are many Democrats who voted for Arnold, so please don't blame us Republicans.

Besides, don't you want to see the red faces of those diehard religious right Republicans when a prominent, liberal/moderate Republican won elections?  It lessens the hold those fanatics have on a major political party in US which will only lead to better things.  (Democrats or Republicans are not going to win every elections.  It is far better to have influencial voices of reason in both parties.)

Take care,

GC

p.s. Political discussions tend to divide members of TER community.  Since the vote has been counted, I think it is time to get back to more pressing matters - like the new talents in this hobby.

Clinton did do something about Bin Laden.  He fired a couple of cruise missiles at a tent in the middle of the desert.  I am just thankful I won't be around 60-70 years from now when the bleeding heart liberals bring our great country down to what France is, a big no nut disgrace of a country.  I am glad you bleeding hearts weren't around during WWII, who knows what would've happened then.  Germany and Japan would've taken over and owned half the world before MAYBE you no ball pacifist would've decided to do anything.  Yeah France and Germany are great countries to model your political beliefs behind.  Nothing like saying here let me bend over and grab my ankles while you take over my country, rape our women, live in our homes, and then come "do" me.  What a great model (France) for liberalism! FDR would be rolling in his grave if he knew what Democrats have become.

Obviously, you're someone who doesn't do research and formulates his opinion based on how he feels rather than actual fact. 1) The economy takes 4-5 years to feel the influence of a presidential administration, positive or negative. The so-called prosperity of the Clinton administration had little or nothing to do with him. The recession we're now experiencing is fallout from his term; 2) Worldwide movement towards peaceful resolution??? What cave did you crawl out of? Clinton botched nearly every attempt at real resolution. He deployed a scant military (due to his own choice to drastically reduce our military to the point where it could not effectively conduct a war on two fronts) in more regions than the three presidents before him combined. He failed in Bosnia by doing to little, to late, by not punishing a government /He put troops in Somalia with no real, definitive objective. Look at Mogadishu, for instance. Also, look at the fact that N. Korea is now using the 2 nuclear plants we helped buy for them when Clinton sent Carter over to negotiate peace. They gave a verbal promise not to build nukes (and that's ALL we got from them) and we buy them 2 nuclear powerplants. Guess where that plutonium they're now using is coming from? ; 3) Intelligently answer a question? Okay, so Dubya isn't the most articulate, but at least he's genuine. Apparently, being a Rhodes scholar can't make you honest; 4) Alienate our allies? Wake up, pal. We're the only country that had the sack to stand up against a violation of UN resolutions by Iraq. France? Germany? Useless and in full ignorance of the laws the global community laid down via the UN. Hell, the UN couldn't even uphold their own resolutions. They're no allies if they don't stand by their own principles.

Do your homework first, genius. I'm so freakin' tired of ignorant people making asinine statements about world affairs when they have information that comes out of the liberal media or when it's just based on how they feel. Try reading a book sometime.

Dirk,  I know I'm probably wasting my breath, but it's the sign of a narrow mind to lump all people under one title, "bleeding heart liberals"

First of all, questioning the reasons for putting our sons and daughters in "harms way" has nothing to do with pacifism... it shows an intelligent concern for making sure we're doing the best thing for this country, and that the country is doing the best thing for it's citizens... power and brute force aren't always the correct or only solution to a problem:  Then again, sometimes it IS the only solution, but that doesn't mean it should be rushed into with reckless abandon.  

Since this war has started, we've learned that we were fed a lot of misleading facts and half-truths by the powers that be.  What I'm wondering is if this had turned into another viet nam, instead of the relative walk in th park that it did, would most people who currently argue for it's necessity still be as vocal in their support of it?  I doubt it.

And for historical accuracy, this country during the early years of WWII was decidedly pacifist-like in it's views toward Germany... There was great support for isolationism... Lend Lease was a way of supporting our "allies" without risking American lives, and it wasn't until the war was well underway in Europe, and not going well for our allies, that we reluctantly joined the fray...

And in all fairness, nobody would have hesitated to declare war on Japan after the attack of Pearl Harbor, so let's not even address that.

Now, while it's very convenient to blame France and Germany for their refusal to support the war in Iraq,  again let's look at the whole picture.  The-Hated-By-Conservatives-Clinton, through good will and diplomacy, had established one of the best relationships with our NATO allies that we've had in the last 30 years.  Within a very short time after his election, Bush and Chaney had destroyed the good will that Clinton had spent 8 years establishing by flexing the U.S,'s muscles and running roughshod over NATO, pulling out of several treaties and accords with no regard for our allies... France and Germany's failure to support the U.S. regarding Iraq was payback for the way NATO had been treated by the Bush administration.  It's arguable as to whether that was the right thing to do, but you can't blame them for doing it.  It had nothing to do with cowardice on their part.

As for Clinton lobbing a few cruise missles at a few tents in the dessert being the only thing he did, that's bullshit... it's a mantra that the repulicans have been chanting over and over again through their propaganda ministers, people like Rush (my back hurts) Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Anne (you're a traitor) Coulter, and others.   It's too long to discuss here, but PLEASE stop listening to the rhetoric and do a google search on the subject. and you'll find the truth.

One note:  During Clinton's administation, we actually CAUGHT some terrorists... Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first Twin Towers bombing, now serving life in prison; Tim McVey, now serving life in the grave, and ten of the men responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.  (They later escaped from a Yemin jail, but that wasn't the fault of the Clinton administration)

And again, if you'll check the facts, Clinton had presented an anti-terrorism plan to the Bush administration two months before leaving office, which was stone walled by the Bush people until after 9/11, when it was then put in place almost exactly as it had been proposed by the Clinton people.  

And by the way, many very highly placed members of the intelligence community, several of them republicans, gave Clinton high praise for doing more about terrorism than any President in the 20th century.

No offense but, while everyone's entitled to their opinions, you owe it to yourself to do a little research instead of just listening to the dogma of the conservative right.  Someone recently said "Conservatives love their country like a child loves a parent - unconditionally; while liberals love their country just as much, but as an adult loves another adult, seeking explainations in order to make their love grow stronger...

Remember the mantra of the conservatives during Viet Nam... "My country, right or wrong"... in retrospect, I think most would agree that it was a poor slogan.

Before calling others ignorant, you should re-evaluate some of your statements.

The "liberal media" is a myth created and propagated by people like Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and the entire Fox News Channel.  A recent study wherein TV and print journalists were polled and compared to a random polling of Americns showed that the journalists, as a whole, were decidedly more conservative than Joe Public, particularly in financial and foreign policy matters.   And a study by the non-partisan Pew Charitable Trust's Project for Excellence in Journalism analyzed 1149 stories from 17 leading news sources on the 2000 presidental election campaign.  The result?  Positive stories - Gore, 13%, Bush, 24%... Neutral stories - Gore, 31%, Bush, 27%... Negative stories - Gore, 56%, Bush, 49%... so much for the myth of liberal media.

"He deployed a scant military (due to his own choice to drastically reduce our military to the point where it could not effectively conduct a war on two fronts)" - more bullshit, and word for word rhetoric from the conservative right.  Here's the  real facts:

That statement, paraphrasing a quote made by Bush and Cheney during their accecptance speeches at the Reb. National Conventions, was contradicted shortly afterwards by Gen. Hugh Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by Defense Secretary William Cohen, and by Bush's foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage.  Appearing before a hearing of the Senate Arms Service Committee, held just a few days after the speeches, Carl Levin, the committees ranking member asked:

"I want to get back to the two divisions not being ready for duty... ...Are those two divisions ready for duty, or aren't they?"

Richard Armitage's reply: " I believe those two divisions, Senator, are ready for duty"

Mr. Levin's reply: "That's not what Governor Bush said the other night, and that's why I think an apology is appropriate"

(Bush never apoligized)

This is all in the congressional record, if you'd care to read it.

The clinton defense budget in 1996 was larger than the outgoing budget of Bush Sr.'s administration, a budget developed by then DOD Secretary Dick Chaney.  In 2001, Clinton-Gore requested 0 new tanks, 52 new tactical aircraft, and 6 new naval ships.  Bush's 2002 defense budget requested 0 new tanks, 58 tactical aircraft and 5 new ships.

The war in Kosovo, in which NO American lives were lost, was quoted by Captain Charles O'Brian, a company commander in Iraq, as "giving his soldiers a foundation in stability support ops" (the ability to defend against paramilitary forces, suicide bombers, etc.).  

The mastermind of the Iraq war was General Tommy Franks, who was appointed to head the Central Command by... yep, Bill Clinton.  Lawrence J. Korb, the director of national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (and assistant secretary of defense under Regan) stated that "the military forces that executed (the Iraq) plan so boldly and bravely were for the most part recruited, trained and equipped by the Clinton Administration"  Oh, and two of the most effective weapons used during the Iraq invasion, the Predator and the JDAM missle were both funded by the Clinton administration.  The JDAM, a "smart bomb", cost $20,000 each as compared to $100,000 for the smart bombs used in dessert storm.

And by he way, nine months after Bush was elected, Rumsfeld took our "gutted" military and with no new funding went to war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and won the fight in about two weeks.

Clinton, North Korea, and two nuclear plants - Bad.  But so was Bush Sr.'s administration arming the Afghans and then abandonimg them after the Soviet Union withdrew, allowing the Taliban to take control of the country.  And so was giving Iraq the very "weapons of mass destruction", including chemical and biological weapons, that we supposedly went to war over, and that were used by Saddam to kill his own countrymen.   Oh, and Haliburton, while Dick Cheney was C.E.O. did a LOT of business with Iran and Iraq, which at the time was strictly against Federal Law... When questioned about it, he denied that it had occured, and then when it was proven, he claimed that he (the C.E.O.) was "unaware" of HIS companies dealings.

So, do your homework first, genius. I'm so freakin' tired of ignorant people making asinine statements about world affairs WITHOUT ANY FACTS, when their information comes from conservative dogma or when it's just based on how they feel. Try reading a book written by someone other than Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly.

Its true Eddie Conservatives do love their country, liberals on the other hand, stick their wet finger in the air every morning to see which way the wind is blowing and like the proverbial goose, they wake up in a new world every day.

as always
HAPPY HUNTING

-- Modified on 10/12/2003 3:21:56 PM

See, that's the thing about conservatives... they cannot accept anyone having a different opinion then they do.. they wrap themselves in the American Flag and claim that anyone who doesn't feel the same as they do is unpatriotic, or worse, as in Anne Coulter's words, a traitor.  They spout dogma and rhetoric, and feel that breaking Federal Laws or constitutional amendments is OK because it's in the best interest of the country...

After 9/11, the conservatives blamed it on Clinton, homosexuals, abortionists and others... in fact, they blamed everyone but the terrorists!

True Americans love their country, and it has nothing to do with which political party they're affiliated with, or whether they're liberal or conservative... and any intelligent person without an agenda should realize that.

Eddie maybe you need to stop watching /listening to the ridiculous Democratic debates.  You are just parroting what they are saying.  What half truths do you speak of?  That there weren’t weapons of mass destruction that Sadam was hoarding?  Sadam had over 3 months to dispose/bury/hide/destroy what ever he had.  There has been a mountain of evidence of Risen, Anthrax, etc. that they were either trying to produce or they were producing.  There also was chemical suits, serums (used shots), etc. mass produced for their troops.  Do you not consider Risen or Anthrax a weapon of mass destruction?  Risen alone can destroy companies of troops not to mention what it could do in a terrorist situation.  Iraq was led by a an evil dictator who’s sole purpose was to control the Arab oil.  To be the master “Arab leader” and he was going to gain that power through killing, plotting, and hoarding weapons of mass destruction.  The U.S. destroyed a 24/7 threat to the U.S. and its interests.  You should breathe easier now Eddie, you have a proactive leader instead of a reactive leader.  Its shame that we will never see what was prevented years from now by destroying this regime.  Bush made a very bold decision because he knew even if it was successful; nobody would ever know what he prevented from happening in the future.  We will never know how many lives of citizens, troops, and countries that were saved by destroying Sadam.  Destroying Sadam will have a trickle down affect for years to come for the good, which the world will not know or recognize.

If your belief is that the U.S. should get permission from countries such as France, Germany or any other NATO country to protect it’s self and its interests, then you are living in a dream world buddy.  The U.S. and England were NATO and they carried NATO since it’s existence.  Has it ever donned on you that maybe the other NATO countries should be following the U.S. lead and not the U.S. following NATO’s lead? Do you honestly believe the countries such as France and Germany know what is best for the U.S. and England?   World peace is a wonderful thought, but it belongs in the Land of OZ.  It’s not reality and never will be.  Man has fought wars since his existence and those who have been strongest have survived.  If you sit back and do nothing and not take the war to your enemies, your enemies will take it to you.  Don’t fool yourself Eddie, those countries (Germany, France) are only looking out for themselves and only wish they had the cojones that the U.S. has.  France has been and still is the most coward country in the world.  You know how they keep themselves from being attacked by terrorists?  They pay them off and allow them and their families to live in France.  Read up a little on that Eddie, how France is linked to funding Muslim terrorists and terror sponsoring countries.

I am still asking myself where these liberal cowards were when Clinton was bombing/killing innocent Bosnian citizens, when the bombs were falling and killing women and children.  Where was the Dixie Chicks, Martin Sheen or any other hypocrite liberal coward actor during this time?  I as many other conservatives stood behind the president and our soldiers during this time.  There were no anti war songs, protests, and Clinton bashing on a daily basis over this.  This shows the true colors of a liberal.  You are not against the war because of your concerns of soldiers and innocent women/children dying.  Your concern is purely political.  To bash Bush on every decision he makes because he is simply a member of a different political party.  Once again I ask where was the outrage over the bombings in Bosnia from these compassionate liberals?  

I don’t even want to get started on the WWII subject.  I am an expert and have read up on everything up and down about the war including what happened before, during, and afterwards.  The world should have learned from WWII that you cannot use diplomacy to defuse dictator(s) hell bent to gain power.  Germany broke many treaty agreements (Versailles) after WWI once Hitler took over and committed atrocities that don’t need to be repeated.  Sound familiar (Iraq)?  Countries like France and most of Europe did nothing but sit back and eat cheese/drank their wine while Germany built a war machine that mowed them down.  I at least respect the people of Poland, Netherlands, Russia and England that fought Germany to the bitter end even though they were out manned and out gunned.  France rolled over once again and waited for the rest of the world to come to their rescue.  You know what allowed Hitler and Germany to become so strong and the atrocities to happen over those 6 years?  It’s called PACIFISM Eddie.  It’s doing nothing while crimes, atrocities, etc are being committed in your face.  Its a shame that lives have to be lost and brave soldiers have to die, but evil must be stopped and sacrifices must be made to prevent citizens, countries, and races of people from being extinguished off the planet.

 The first problem is thinking that this is a democracy and not a Republic with an entrenched ruling class.

 The second is thinking that celebrity and money hasn't been a major influence since day one. Since Ogh got elected to be head man of the tribe.

 Republicans, Democrats and politicans in general are equally worthless. PAC's, Special interest groups and soft money should be outlawed. Term limits should be across the board for all elected positions, from dog catcher to President. Elected officals should care more about the common good and less about pork barrel and log rolling. And certianly less about their own bank account. This of course will only be possible in a truly enlightened civil society. I hope I live long enough to see it, I doubt I will.

 BTW - I am a gun toting liberal Republican, if W gets re elected for round two, I'm moving to Canada.