mudcat.org: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2]


BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?

Mrrzy 07 Aug 00 - 01:53 PM
Whistle Stop 07 Aug 00 - 02:44 PM
Ebbie 07 Aug 00 - 03:19 PM
katlaughing 07 Aug 00 - 03:20 PM
Kim C 07 Aug 00 - 03:48 PM
kendall 07 Aug 00 - 03:52 PM
AllisonA(Animaterra) 07 Aug 00 - 03:54 PM
Mbo 07 Aug 00 - 04:04 PM
Jed at Work 07 Aug 00 - 04:16 PM
catspaw49 07 Aug 00 - 04:24 PM
Thomas the Rhymer 07 Aug 00 - 04:26 PM
Rick Fielding 07 Aug 00 - 04:29 PM
katlaughing 07 Aug 00 - 04:37 PM
Kim C 07 Aug 00 - 05:03 PM
Mbo 07 Aug 00 - 05:10 PM
Mbo 07 Aug 00 - 05:14 PM
Thomas the Rhymer 07 Aug 00 - 05:16 PM
Jim the Bart 07 Aug 00 - 05:25 PM
Thomas the Rhymer 07 Aug 00 - 06:26 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 00 - 06:38 PM
kendall 07 Aug 00 - 06:41 PM
Mrrzy 07 Aug 00 - 06:44 PM
DougR 07 Aug 00 - 06:57 PM
Thomas the Rhymer 07 Aug 00 - 07:15 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 00 - 07:19 PM
DougR 07 Aug 00 - 10:55 PM
Thomas the Rhymer 07 Aug 00 - 11:11 PM
Mbo 07 Aug 00 - 11:14 PM
Ebbie 07 Aug 00 - 11:20 PM
Mbo 07 Aug 00 - 11:26 PM
thosp 07 Aug 00 - 11:54 PM
Thomas the Rhymer 07 Aug 00 - 11:58 PM
thosp 08 Aug 00 - 12:08 AM
Thomas the Rhymer 08 Aug 00 - 12:29 AM
GUEST,Luther 08 Aug 00 - 12:37 AM
PoohBear 08 Aug 00 - 12:40 AM
GUEST,Luther 08 Aug 00 - 12:42 AM
CarolC 08 Aug 00 - 02:51 AM
Ebbie 08 Aug 00 - 02:54 AM
Thomas the Rhymer 08 Aug 00 - 03:16 AM
CarolC 08 Aug 00 - 03:32 AM
Whistle Stop 08 Aug 00 - 08:41 AM
DougR 08 Aug 00 - 09:47 AM
Mrrzy 08 Aug 00 - 10:06 AM
GUEST,Luther 08 Aug 00 - 10:25 AM
katlaughing 08 Aug 00 - 10:32 AM
katlaughing 08 Aug 00 - 12:09 PM
DougR 08 Aug 00 - 12:15 PM
Jim the Bart 08 Aug 00 - 12:37 PM
Thomas the Rhymer 08 Aug 00 - 12:47 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 01:53 PM

Could have tacked this onto the Presidential Songs thread - but I didn't - so, what do you all think of Gore picking someone not of the WASPish persuasion? I, personally, was hoping for a woman, but this is an interesting one... Anyway, just curious about y'all's thoughts on this one. And if you can bring in any music, great! All I can think of is the line from Tom Lehrer's Marines song - They've Got To Be Protected, All Their Rights Respected, Till Somebody We LIKE Can Be Elected!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 02:44 PM

Well, it's not truly official until the candidate announces it (just like Cheney wasn't), but I guess it's becoming clearer that Gore is planning to do just that.

It certainly is about time we got a someone other than a white, Protestant male on a presidential ticket (one that has a chance of winning, anyway -- Ferraro didn't really count, because Mondale never really had a shot). However, I can't shake the feeling that the principal reason Gore picked Lieberman is that the latter was so strident in denouncing Clinton during the whole Lewinsky fiasco. In other words, what Gore really wants is someone who can be suitably sanctimonious on the evening news, thereby taking the wind out of the sails of the Clinton-bashers who hope to taint Gore by association. This phony "I'm more moral than you" posturing really turns my stomach, and I hate to see it perpetuated in any form. If it weren't for that, I'd feel pretty good about this selection.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 03:19 PM

I haven't yet read any commentary on the pick but my take on it is that Al Gore has greatly enhanced his chances in his choice of Lieberman. Somewhat in the way that Carter was a needed option after the debacle of Nixon, perhaps the country 'needs' a clear statement of moral probity, after the confusing Clinton stance.

And I would imagine that having a Jew as a VP nominee can only help- And I say Hurray for that!

Ebbie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 03:20 PM

Lieberman was okay when we lived in CT, although a tad more conservative than I liked. He did seem fair and deliberate. Have to say I didn't vote for him in the primary back when, though. I think he will liven things up a bit, for Gore and for the race.

Living in Wyoming and having been here a good share of my life, I'd say the choice of him over Cheney is like night and day, esp. for women. Cheney turns my stomach and is scary. We don't need TWO good ole' boys from the multi-million dollar side of the oil patch running the country into the ground the way Cheney and his cronies have done Wyoming.

katopinionatedasalways


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Kim C
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 03:48 PM

I vote Libertarian.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: kendall
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 03:52 PM

If God had wanted us to vote, he/she would have given us candidates


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 03:54 PM

With Republicans, it's man against man.
With Democrats, it's exactly the opposite.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Mbo
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 04:04 PM

I like what my priest says about the whole Presidential thing. "I hope they BOTH lose!" I will be saving my first chance to vote when there is actually something worth voting FOR.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Jed at Work
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 04:16 PM

MBO - don't be foolish and let my vote count twice; once for me, and once for the one you didn't cast. Of course there is actually something worth voting for! So what if your candidate doesn't win; at least you participated. And if you don't knkow all - vote the party. EVERY VOTE MATTERS!

I like Lieberman. Seems like a good guy; reasoned, intelligent, fair minded, centered (as in balanced). Those things are much more important to me then his opinion on this issue or that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 04:24 PM

I fear for Lieberman's name recognition factor. Shrub and Chainmail have been in the public eye a good bit and once again, its a popularity contest in this day and age. Hope he brings Gore out and speaking loudly on issues....we'll see.

I look forward to the debates this time. Not that anyone actually says anything, but I think Gore's intelligence and ability to think on his feet will be a big asset. Outside of that, I fear we're in for a lot of name calling.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 04:26 PM

Nader is a realistic, thought provoking, and intellegent candidate. He knows what corruption looks like, and he is the type of person who exposes political corruption for what it is... His credentials are about as popularly based as a persosn's could be, and he is not particularly gifted at the fine art of deceit. He is the one who could change the modus opperandi of Wahington (and the world), and if we really believe that we make a difference, well then,... Vote for Nader! Green Party.
Gore just might be a poser, and Bush represents Kafka's worst nightmare...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 04:29 PM

"Politics is the art of making the inevitable seem like the result of careful planning". Quentin Crisp.

Can you imagine for one minute what kind of human CHOOSES to sit every day in a great big room listening to endless quasi-honest speeches? Boggles my mind.

People who have jobs that I admire:

Fishing guide.

Test Pilot

Gardener

Painter

Astronomer

Poet

Now THOSE are gigs with REAL power.

Rick

I do think he should have picked Oprah, though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 04:37 PM

I would vote for Nader, if I didn't think it would help Shrub et al (thanks, Spaw!) get elected.

Anyone who does NOT vote needs to get their head on right. The makeup of the laws of this country will matter a great deal in this election, as there are many appointments to the Supreme Court which will probably come up for the next president to make. That can last a very long time and effect many generations.

Also, to any who whine about politics: less than half of eligible voters voted last time. If people really want a change they need to get off their arses and vote.

If I really believed enough people would vote for Nadar, I would join them in a true voting box revolution.

Apathy is this country's greatest enemy and I, for one, am tired of the old saw, "I'd vote if, or when, we have something to vote for."

This is it, boys and girls, participate or it will keep going downhill.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Kim C
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 05:03 PM

I agree with Kendall in that there just doesn't seem to be a wealth of outstanding candidates. Now, I'm 32, so this is only my fourth Presidential election. I was 21 the first time I got to vote, in 1988. The first two times, I voted for who I thought was going to win. Some people like to do this, but I think it's a bad idea. I want to vote for the person/party who best represents Me. If everyone did that, the results would be quite a bit different from what we've been seeing.

Also, I think that the absolute best people for the job of President are just too damn smart to want it. I am not man-bashing (I don't do that, I love men)when I say that THAT's why we see so few women running for office in this country... not that so few are qualified, but that They Simply Have Too Much Sense to Want the Job. There are a lot of men who fit that bill, too. Government in the US has become such a circus that everyone figures they'll just leave it to the clowns.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Mbo
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 05:10 PM

Fact is, I don't really care much about politics. I wouldn't mind not voting ever.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Mbo
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 05:14 PM

Actually, on second thought, I WOULD have voted for McCain if people hadn't ignored him and went with Mr. TexAss himself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 05:16 PM

Snap out of it Mbo, please?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 05:25 PM

I think it's absurd that we look at so many things - ethnic/gender acceptability, good looks, party affiliation, running mate - before we look at a candidate's record of public service. Nader's record as a whistle blower is commendable, but it doesn't necessarily mean he will be a good president. The president needs to be able to govern, i.e., compromise when necessary, build coalitions in support of policy decisions, lead and inspire the "body politic". Jimmy Carter showed us clearly what can happen when a man is on the right side of the issues but does not know how to negotiate the bureaucracy.

Bush is a cipher. His record shows us very little, other than that he is smart enough to find handlers who can build him into a very good candidate. As for being a man of principle who will uphold the fine Republican traditions, I cannot see it yet. Maybe it will become clearer as the campaign runs and the debates are held. I know picking Cheney is viewed by some in the GOP as proving that GWB recognizes presidential timber when he sees it. So why didn't they nominate Cheney for pres, instead of the photogenic guy with all the name recognition. If I were the republicans, I wouldn't be so quick to forget that "George Bush" is the name of a repudiated former President.

That brings us to Al Gore, who appears to be a better man than he is a candidate. His handlers have completely ruined him. I believe that if the let the man's intellect and humor show people would like him more. He is not Bill Clinton. And all those women who supported Clinton and are abandoning Gore (why? because he's not sexy??)should be ashamed. Not being Clinton should be another point in his favor. He is better than Clinton.

I don't blame him for not repudiating Clinton during the Lewinsky stuff; it would have been disloyal and horribly self-serving to add fuel to that grease fire. I think his silence once the big lie fell through was a proper response for a man in his position. Whether he is culpable in the fund raising "scandal" is an entirely different issue. It may have been wrong, it may have been stupid, but it ain't nothing but politics. And as the late mayor of Chicago Harold Washington said, "politics ain't beanbag." I can't see where this negates all those years of service. If you think that makes him a less worthy candidate than George Dubya, I have a word for you - "REPUBLICAN". IMHO


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 06:26 PM

Thanks for the escapade into party politics, Bartholomew, I feel like you have a firm grasp on the obvious, however mundane... I'm sorry, I am just weary of appologists for this system. IMHO, the overconsumption of the world's biosphere IS a much more important problem than say, doling out military contracts evenly, or patting the right backs in the right order, for the right favors, at the right time, for the wrong reasons... Gore has indisputedly fooled us with his informed approach, and his book; but these are hard (not soft) issues, and are not really compromise material. He hasn't done anything!
Perhaps it is the compromises that got us here! Some issues don't compromise well,... We are so steeped in the two party systm, that we just don't know what to do... with REAL issues. The common ground between the two main parties IS one of our biggest problems, and all the carrers that have been built upon "communicating" between the two "sides" of the same corrupt system are the cement that holds the whole rotten thing together.
end of rant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 06:38 PM

I love Ralph Nader. He's been one of my biggest heroes since I was a youngster.

However, as much as I hate to say this, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: kendall
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 06:41 PM

would someone tell me what George W has done besides sign over 100 death warrants?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 06:44 PM

Well, THIS sure got interesting fast... Kendall, what a hoot! Mbo, this is the first thing I've seen you write that surprised me. I can't decide if I think that choosing someone who wasn't a WASP has just handed the presidency to Shrub (good one) on a platter... I fear...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 06:57 PM

I'm with Thomas the Rhymer, vote for NADER, Mudcatters! :>) DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 07:15 PM

I guess that what troubles me most is that GWB is being considered at all. Kendall, he apparently lost millions in his 'business' ventures, and repeatedly backslid...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 07:19 PM

Kendall, the answer to your question is-

Not much.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 10:55 PM

Duh! I suppose one could pose the same question about Al Gore (or Bill Clinton prior to his becoming President). I suppose one could. *BG*

I still NADER is the man! DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 11:11 PM

I read in the paper today that the first thing Bush did upon entering office (the night of his inauguration) was to sign the execution orders for a man with an IQ of about 70. Bush has been approached by the bar on at least one occasion on this point... How serious are his chances?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Mbo
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 11:14 PM

What should I snap out of Thomas? Actually, I really like historic European politics...but modern stuff is like "ZZZZZZ!"

--Matt


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 11:20 PM

As in so much else in politics, compromise this year is needed up front and early. I respect Ralph Nader;I have voted for him several times and in years to come when I think neither of the 2-party banner carriers is tolerable, I will vote for him again.

However, idealism doesn't play well against reality. Since I distinctly do NOT want the Bush/Cheney alliance in that office, I will vote for Gore/Lieberman. Both these men have demonstrated substance and vision.

As for saying that although he wrote an important book, Gore has donenothing, surely it is up to usto act- IMO that's what education is supposed to accomplish. Would you say that Rachel Carson only wrote a book?

Ebbie

Ebbie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Mbo
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 11:26 PM

My Psychology teacher used to joke about running for President. As a behavioural pychologist, she said her campaign slogan would be "Change Your Behaviour!" Dr. Barton..where are you???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: thosp
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 11:54 PM

well as of this moment i am in the Nader camp ---- i'm so tired of voting for the lesser evil that i think may win --at this moment that would be Gore -- the only reason i voted for Clinton/Gore previously was because of Gore -- Clinton lost me early on -- this time around i want to vote for someone i really want ---- CarolC. and some of my friends say a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush -- i hope not -- i see your point -- but i think if enough people vote Green-Nader it may pull Gore (or even Bush) back to a stronger enviormental stance --well maybe not Bush -and take out the maybe --- also when Nader talks about the working class i feel that he reallycares and understands -- the others (Bush/Gore?etc.)seem to have gotten thier knowledge of the nonmillionaire set through the Hubble telescope --- so much for this rant

peace (Y) thosp


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Aug 00 - 11:58 PM

O.K. the reality check is taken well. I am prone to being idealistic when the elections are drawing near, and I AM likely to change my mind later on, as the potential negative looks possible... but for the time being, shouldn't we persue our Ideals with feeling? Nader has a chance to become President, if we want him.
I think you are right in calling me on my extreme view of Gore, as he is quite acceptable really... But I will remain idealistic with my energy untill I must 'go with the flow' and blindly save the 'common good' from immanent peril...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: thosp
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:08 AM

"say it ain't so thomas the rhymer" --

peace (Y) thosp


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:29 AM

thosp, you are like a breath of fresh air
encouraging everyone to take time to care
And don't fret if I value all sides with a prayer
For exclusion is dual, is fuel'd despair

May the inherent powers of the universal truth animate you and bring others to your spring; with gladness...thosp!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:37 AM

aaaaagggghhhhhh comparing Rachel Carson to Gore, that kind of sticks in my craw. Rachel Carson was one of the finest, bravest, most fully realized human beings this world has been privileged to know, and she did what she did at a terrible cost to herself. Gore is a politician who cobbled together a book of some truth, some half-truth, and a lot of baloney at a time when it was fashionable to be Environmental. You might as well compare Jesus to Deepak Chopra.

If your conscience say vote Nader, for god's sake DO IT. A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. It's a vote for Nader -- nothing more, nothing less. He may not win. He's very unlikely to win. There's probably not a chance in hell that he'll win. Those are probabilities. But here's an absolute certainty: he won't win if you don't vote for him. He won't win if you continue thinking in cliches like "a vote for X is a vote for Y", election after election after election.

For a third party (or a second party, in real opposition to the Democratrepublican party) to succeed, to become a meaninful force, somebody is going to have to VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE. Lots of somebodies, in election after election. Why not start now?

Nothing terrible is going to happen if Dubya wins. We'll still have plenty of light bulbs and toilet paper and 140 channels on the TV and an appalling educational system and something called the "health care industry" and kids shooting kids and corporations will still get to write their own legislation, just like now, just like before. Or maybe just a little more like now, but not so you'd notice much.

And besides, if this country elects Dubya, what could be more appropriate than having a president who looks exactly like Alfred E. Newman, only not quite as bright?

There's a great Michael Moore column at grassroots.com, to find it it's easiest to go to www.michaelmoore.com and take the link, third icon from the left at the bottom of the page.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: PoohBear
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:40 AM

I wish I could stand to listen to both of the idiots long enough to form an intelligent opinion. I simply have no patience for the BS they seem to spew everytime they step in front of a microphone. It is a pity that the political process in this country has become such a circus that only those least qualified to hold office will run. Those intelligent enough to do a good job of it are way too intelligent to subject themselves to the media feeding frenzy that surrounds any candidate.

I must admit that I will probably "vote for the lesser of two evils", although at this point I am unsure who I believe that to be.

PB


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:42 AM

oops, that's www.michaelmoore.com -- what a place for a typo


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 02:51 AM

Ok, this is the way I see it.

You have two choices. Whether you like it or not. In order to win, a candidate must have the majority of one of the parties, and also most of the swing vote. Nader can't do it. I promise. So it's Bush or Gore.

If Bush is elected, he'll know full well that it wasn't the environmentally conscious voters who elected him. He will know that he doesn't need their votes in order to get re-elected. So he won't feel in the least beholden, or accountable to people who vote on environmental issues.

Gore, on the other hand will know that he needs the environmental constituency in order to get re-elected. He may not change things as fast as we wish, but he will move things in the right direction, as opposed to Bush, who I'm quite confident will move things in the wrong direction.

The problem with wanting change to happen quickly is that you get a backlash. That's why the environmental movement of the 70s became such a joke. A lot of politicians played on people's fears about losing their jobs in order to justify environmentally bad decisions.

I know many people think that Clinton has been a bad president, but I have seen real change for the better, and without a backlash. He has worked very hard to move us in the right direction without creating fears about the economy and jobs. I think that's what we want.

Respectfully, Carol


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 02:54 AM

Well, Luther, I agree with you that pulling Rachel Carson out of the hat was unconscionable- but I was only exploring the thought that the beginning of a movement (Hush, Spaw) is all that's required of an individual, that it is up to us We, the people to respond and carry it forward. Frankly, I liked his book.

Among the things I despair of if Bush/Cheney get in is ANWR. I see no earthly reason to invade and trash a Refuge - for God's sake - in order to see if there is more oil in Alaska to send overseas , for God's sake...

End of Rant

Ebbie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 03:16 AM

O.K. then... When the WTO meets in Seattle and the town turns into a HUGE protest, does this represent apathy? NO IT DOESN'T! The discontent that is brewing in America is real, even if there are TOO MANY ISSUES to allow a nice clean adgenda to be set.
But it DOES seem to be fashionable for aware people to be cynical, and it is even more GLAMOROUS to not vote! The very real REALITY is that if we could activate this huge segment of the population (you know, the gifted annimated left) to actually vote, AND vote their conscience... NADER WILL WIN. It is as simple as that.
When it comes right down to it, less people will vote for dubaya shrub than we think... it is actually a small percentage of the voting populus. The level of intimidation that we experience from the conservative capitalist corporatives (CCC) of the world is basically a guilt driven fantasy, and it only exists if we allow it to be real to us.
When the WTO met, and the ensuing rallies took place, there was a presence made by people (who were not just finding an excuse to break windows and vandalize honest business people...I really wish they had not done the violence thing), expressing their concern for the overall direction of 'progress'. That is the taproot for global change, and we are 'the people' who can make it happen. NADER REPRESENTS THIS FORCE, and we have a quasi-responsibility to remind people that individuals WILL make a difference.
I am just amazed at the scope of change that awaits us... if we snap out of it and network like we mean it!
Love and honor! ttr


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 03:32 AM

The center is bigger than either the right, or the left. That is a provable fact. That's why Clinton got elected twice. He targeted the center.

The only question is, which way will the center go - to the right or the left. If Nader takes too many votes away from Gore, I'm betting on the center going right. I've seen it happen too many times before.

Carol


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 08:41 AM

Well, let's see. I agree with CarolC that Clinton has been a much better President than he's given credit for. But I also agree with Luther that we should vote for the person we want to win, rather than betting on it like a horse race.

TTR, I hate to break the news to you, but the WTO protest fiasco in Seattle did more to harm the protesters' various causes than it did to help them; they certainly didn't win a lot of hearts and minds in the rest of the country. This is what happens when people decide to "take it to the streets" without first deciding to get their shit together. In my most humble opinion (and recognizing that this may not endear me to the majority of Mudcatters), people are much too quick these days to opt for street protests; it's fun, it's relatively easy, and it's oh so romantic. Create a ragged list of "causes" to complain about (don't bother with solutions; that's someone else's job), round up a bunch of college students, encourage them to clown around (pharmaceuticals don't hurt) and create disturbances in the streets (since it's a "protest," the usual rules of civility are suspended), and then disavow all responsibility when things go awry.

As for me, I have more respect for people who actually work within the system to bring about change -- it's frustrating, and you have to content yourself with compromise and incremental progress, but in the end it's a more honorable way to proceed. Street protests are have their place, but as far as I'm concerned they are what you should resort to when the system freezes you out -- they should not be the first option of choice, as I fear they are for too many people who don't have the patience for the more tedious process of working for real change. And if you do opt for protesting in the streets, as far as I'm concerned you have to take responsibility for what you've unleashed, whether it's what you intended or not.

A rant of my own; I will now proceed to duck and cover.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: DougR
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 09:47 AM

You SHOULDN'T have to duck, Whistle Stop, you merely spoke your mind, and that is your right! The majority of the folks on the Mudcat are Liberals so you you should have nothing to be concerned about. Liberals are very liberal when it comes to tolerating a viewpoint not their own.

I still say vote Nader! If you believe he is the best person for the job, that's what you should do! DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 10:06 AM

"Nothing terrible is going to happen if Dubya wins" - You gotta be kidding. He'll turn the Supreme Court back into the Spanish Inquisition.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 10:25 AM

Mrrzy, I do not believe that for a minute. Look at the records of the justices on issues like, for example, abortion. Then look at who appointed them.

There's no real correspondence at all, is there? It's a myth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 10:32 AM

DougeR...you rascal, you,....spoken like the true Republican you are...pushing us off on Nader, just so'se you have any chance at all of getting ole' Dubya in office! Pretty canny there!**BG** Have you proposed that as the national bumper sticker for the GOP? Maybe they could even donate campaign finance money to Nader, yeah, I like that. The GOP gives him lots of surplus so he can really fire up his campaign...they keep urging all of us liberals to vote for him and voila! Nader DOES get elected!! Yee-Haw!!! Thank you DougeR for that bit of inspiration!! Hahaha!!!

One thing I think we can all agree on? Except Mbo...EVERYONE NEEDS TO GET OUT AND VOTE!!

kat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:09 PM

Luther, surely you cannot believe that? Have a look:

From NARAL:

The next President may have the opportunity to appoint enough Supreme Court Justices so that the Supreme Court overturns Roe/Casey. Whether this occurs depends on three factors. First, the next President must be given a chance to appoint a sufficient number of Justices, at least two, to overcome the current 6-3 split in favor of Roe/Casey. Second, because the President will likely only get two to three appointees, the purported President's appointees must replace existing pro-Roe/Casey Justices. Third, he or she must appoint and the Senate must confirm Justices who would overturn Roe/Casey. If an anti-choice President is elected, all three factors will possibly, if not likely, occur.

The next President will likely nominate two or three individuals who will serve as Supreme Court Justices. One-hundred and ten Justices have served on the United States Supreme Court (John Jay, the first Chief Justice, through Stephen Breyer, the most recent appointee). These 110 Justices have been appointed by 42 Presidents (George Washington through Bill Clinton), for an average of 2.62 Supreme Court Justice appointments per President. Moreover, since 1869 when the maximum number of Justices serving on the Supreme Court was fixed at its current level of 9 (hereinafter "modern times"), the average number of Supreme Court Justices per President is even higher: 70 Justices (William Strong through Stephen Breyer) have been appointed to the Court, and these Justices were appointed by 25 Presidents (Ulysses S. Grant through Bill Clinton), for an average of 2.80 Justices per President.2 Either two or three new anti-choice Justices are sufficient to guarantee Roe's demise if these Justices replace current pro-Roe/Casey Justices.

Given the age of the current membership of the Court, it seems likely that at least two of the next three Justices to leave the Court will be ones who support Roe or Casey. The current Court is comprised of three blocks of Justices. Each member of the first block, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Each member of the second block, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, would not vote to overturn Roe, but would continue applying the more restrictive undue burden standard they announced in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Each member of the third block, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, would vote to uphold Roe. The following chart presents the three blocks in visual format:

(Sorry I cannot get the format of this right. I will post a link at the end, if anyone wants to go look at it. Thanks, kat)

Block 1 - Anti-Choice Justices Block 2 - Pro-Casey Justices Block 3 - Pro-Roe Justices Chief Justice Rehnquist Justice Scalia

Justice Thomas Justice O'Connor Justice Kennedy

Justice Souter Justice Stevens Justice Ginsburg

Justice Breyer

The current membership of the Court listed by age, as of January 2001, the beginning of the next President's term, as as follows:

Stevens - 80 (Born April 20, 1920)
Rehnquist-76 (Born October 1, 1924)
O'Connor-70 (Born March 26, 1930)
Ginsburg-67 (Born March 15, 1933)
Scalia-64 (Born March 11, 1936)
Kennedy-64 (Born July 23, 1936)
Breyer-62 (Born August 15, 1938)
Souter-61 (Born September 17, 1939)
Thomas-52 (Born June 23, 1948)

Thus, three of the four oldest members of the Court recognize that the Constitution protects the right to choose an abortion under either Roe or Casey. If only two of these three Justices left the Court (most likely Stevens and O'Connor) during the next Presidency, the outcome of the 2000 election could determine whether Roe survives. Furthermore, even if the three oldest Justices left, the next President could appoint three anti-choice Justices who would join with Scalia and Thomas to overturn Roe.

Finally, it seems likely that an anti-choice President would nominate Justices who would overturn Roe/Casey and that the anti-choice Senate would confirm their President's choice. The Senate is likely to remain in anti-choice hands for the foreseeable future. Currently, there are only 32 pro-choice members of the Senate, and pro-choice Senators such as Republican John Chafee of Rhode Island have announced that they will not seek reelection in 2000. Thus, pro-choice forces are not likely to retake the Senate in 2000 and will probably have difficulty overcoming their low numbers by 2002. Therefore, anti-choice Justices who would overturn Roe/Casey are likely to be nominated by an anti-choice President and confirmed by an anti-choice Senate.

The historical record demonstrates that it is accurate to say that the outcome of the next election may determine the fate of Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.

NUMBER OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES PER PRESIDENT WHO NOMINATED THEM
President Number of Supreme Court Justices
1. George Washington 11 (John Rutledge appointment to Chief Justice counted).
2. John Adams 3
3. Thomas Jefferson 3
4. James Madison 2
5. James Monroe 1
6. John Quincy Adams 6 (Catron nominated by Jackson, confirmed when Van Buren was President).
8. Martin Van Buren 2
9. William Harrison 0
10. John Tyler 1
11. James Polk 2
12. Zachary Taylor 0
13. Millard Fillmore 1
14. Franklin Pierce 1
15. James Buchanan 1
16. Abraham Lincoln 5
17. Andrew Johnson 0
18. Ulysses S. Grant 4
19. Rutherford B. Hayes 2
20. James Garfield 1
21. Chester Arthur 2
22. Grover Cleveland 2
23. Benjamin Harrison 4
24. Grover Cleveland 2
25. William McKinley 1
26. Theodore Roosevelt 3
27. William Taft 5 (Edward White promotion to Chief Justice not counted).
28. Woodrow Wilson 3
29. Warren Harding 4
30. Calvin Coolidge 1
31. Herbert Hoover 3 (Charles E. Hughes appointment to Chief Justice counted).
32. Franklin Roosevelt 8 (Harlan Stone promotion to Chief Justice not counted).
33. Harry Truman 4
34. Dwight Eisenhower 5
35. John Kennedy 2
36. Lyndon Johnson 2
37. Richard Nixon 4
38. Gerald Ford 1
39. Jimmy Carter 0
40. Ronald Reagan 3 (William Rehnquist promotion to Chief Justice not counted).
41. George Bush 2
42. Bill Clinton 2
Total 110
Average 2.62

1 Even after the 22nd Amendment, which limited a President to two terms, a President appoints on average 2.5 Justices. (Twenty-five justices divided by 10 Presidents).

2 Two Justices, John Rutledge and Charles E. Hughes, have been counted twice in the 110 total because they served as Associates Judges, resigned from the Court, and later both served as Chief Justice. Three other Justices have been Associate Justices before becoming Chief Justices: Edward White, Harlan F. Stone, and William Rehnquist. These three Justices were promoted to Chief Justice when they were Associate Justices, and therefore were only counted once because their appointments to Chief Justice did not change the fact that only one new Justice was appointed to the Court.

Here is that link: CLICK HERE


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: DougR
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:15 PM

Shoot shucks, kat, my love! Do you REALLY think I'd do that? The bumper sticker's a good idea though. Maybe I'll pass it along! DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:37 PM

Thomas -
Thanks for the compliment. Being able to grasp the obvious is a definite step up for me. I used to think the whole system was too hopelessly messed up to fix. The conclusion I ran to was that the only hope was to blow it up and start all over. Unfortunately, when you start over with the same people and the same history you end up in the same place. It does matter who you vote for. But you have to remember what you're voting for, too. You're voting for someone who will govern the country as it is, while moving it gently toward what you want it to be.

When I think of Nader, I see Jimmy Carter. A vote for Carter was, as Hunter Thompson put it, a "leap of faith". He was a guy from outside DC who was going to radically change the political scene. All he did while in office was make Ron Reagan look good by comparison. That is not a mistake I will make again. I admire Nader. I always have. But just as Carter's best work was done after he was out of office, Nader's is done as a voice crying out in the wilderness. What Nader would have to do to get elected would effectively silence that voice; what he would have to do while in office would emasculate it.

If I'm too much of a pragmatist for some, that's OK. The revolution (which I have been praying for since the 60's) is not going to start in Washington DC. The revolution is an internal process. It starts here. It starts where people discuss the ideas that may (or may not) improve the world. You may think that Nader is the answer. I think he's dead wrong on trade and would be a terrible president. Who's right isn't as important as the discussion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:47 PM

I will not flame, I will not flame, I will not flame I will not flame.... When people can't stop pretending that our two party system is Democracy, or that working within the system is going to change the environmental impact of consumer society's addictions, or that violence perpetrated by CIA plants has anything to do with the WTO protests,......I will not flame I will not flame I will not flame I will not flame.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 14 August 5:00 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.