Nazgul

Cough *Draft* Cough.

Frank TJ Mackey

Ahh, what a great show this was.

As far as the election goes, you might as well just say what really happened.......

Karl Rove defeated Mary Beth Cahill.

Also, as far as voting against Bush. Early I thought Kerry was nothing special, but I grew to really like and respect him.

This guy has done it all in the last 40 years. He may not have the charm of Bill Clinton (but no one does or ever will) but I thought he was one of the most deserving candidates of a presidency in a long time.

College kids and young people who didn't vote, have absolutely no right to bi**h about how the election turned out either.

lucasorion

Well, is it so far fetched when our troop capacity is already so strained, and we have burgeoning crises in other countries?

das Monkey

Yes, it is so far fetched. But putting that aside, the draft fear campaign wasn't approached with the unlikely but at least honest, "under Bush, it's more likely we'll be in more conflicts which way down the road may possibly lead to a draft ..." It was approached with outright deception and misrepresentation to convince voters that Bush was actively trying to reinstate the draft behind our backs.

There's no high road on the Fear-mongering Freeway.

das

strife

OK wanted to say was nice to see Bill given some real time (no pun intended) to the other side. He did it with grace, except for a minor burst during the panel discussion.

Those arguing Bush & Kerry fear take it to the elections forum.

nazz

I'm not defending Simpson and think he acted like a complete ass.

I think what set him off though were the comments Bill made in regards to religion prior to the start of the interview. He had been listening and was pissed before Bill even started talking to him.

lucasorion

I guess you were exposed to different sources than me, because all I remember hearing was that it was being talked about in congress by people like Charles Rangel, and i remember seeing a chain email that my mom got all excited about, since my little brother is of draft age. I don't remember that email saying Bush specifically, but that the congress was possibly going to reinstate it, and that people should write their congresspeople to object. I know it seems like it would be far-fetched due to the political unpopularity of it (he doesn't have to get re-elected, though), and that volunteer armies are much more effective and efficient, but when a President campaigns saying that we need to re-elect him because he is the one willing to launch pre-emptive war like he did in Iraq - it really doesn't seem like a stretch to think we might get over-extended and face a crisis in the next four years or soon after. One thing I wouldn't predict is for things to stay status quo with regards to Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.

lucasorion

I finally caught the beginning of this show last night, and it struck me how the conflict between Simpson and Maher was really over sense of humor; and how Simpson's heart is in the right place, but he really doesn't believe you can joke about something without being against it (anti-gay). I guess the kind of sense of humor that Bill and other "coastal elites" have is another indication of the divide with the so-called heartland.

Rivero

right, Simpson didn't seem to get it when the panel kept saying Maher is a big supporter of gay rights depsite the occasional gay joke he tosses off. A dumb, senile old man whose sense of humor and mind are gone.

Tracer Bullet

Satire is a "coastal elite" thing?

wm lopez

This year we had liberals bashing THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST before it came out.
We had liberals bashing those Americans who were upset about Janet Jackson's boob at the SuperBowl.
We had Micheal Moore's movie get big press coverage, but not the same coverage for the movie MICHEAL MOORE HATES AMERICA.
We had a liberal movie called SAVED that came out making fun at christains, but no press commentary on how it would offend christains the way PASSION would on Jews.
We had liberal music, t.v. and movie stars coming out bashing Bush and the press makes them look like heros.
We had all those that protested in N.Y. calling Bush a Hitler, but saying northing about Saddam.
And these same protesters also bashing FoxNews, but keeping sliente about CBS.
And now liberals had a wakeup call that they are outnumbered and that conservatives are hip to their games.

dolphinboy

I actually feel sorry for you, by what seems to consume you and what you see from under your tiny rock, and by what you interpret liberalism as.

On the other hand, congratulations on controlling the government!

Chew

Take nearly the same number of votes and apply them for Bush in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Bush goes from 286 to 317 electorally and a more clear-cut victory.

We can play the "if only" game on both sides.

Jadzia

But if Kerry had eked out a victory, would the Dems be running around talking about their mandate and their political capital?

I just think a lot of people are forgetting how close this election was, and how it really could have gone either way.

Chew

Yes.

Never underestimate both side's ability to spin a victory (no matter how small) into a "mandate".

das Monkey

This whole "mandate" stuff is lame anyway. If you get elected, you're supposed to govern. That's it. Win by one vote or 40 million (using the term "win" loosely, since popular votes are irrelevant), govern the damn country, and the other side needs to grow up and stop trying to force gridlock. Mandate, schmandate.

das

Jadzia

I think if Kerry had won, the GOP spin-meisters would be on every news show talking about how he didn't have a mandate, that he did not reflect the "values" of most Americans, blah, blah, blah.

Whereas, the Dems lost and we are supposed to just "get over" it so that the country can become more "united". When was the last time I heard this? Oh, yeah it was in 2000. I think half the country is just tired of being told our opinions don't matter.

I would have thought Bush would have tried to be moderate when he came in 2000, given the controversy over the election. So now that they are acting like they have this major victory, I'm a little scared at what things they are going to push through.

das Monkey

So, it would be blah, blah, blah if the Republicans whined after the election, but it's OK for the Democrats to be whining?

Both sides need to "get over it." Everyone wants to be a victim these days that the game is now about preemptive strikes. Turn yourself into a victim before even being attacked, and then complain about it for sympathy. There's no justification for it by saying the other side would do the same thing. As South Park so perceptively displayed, that's kindergarten logic. Both sides are wrong on this, and both need to learn how to "move on" when things don't go their way.

Your opinions do matter, but there's only so much that can be accomplished through bitching and complaining. At some point, you have to focus on the things you can change and "get over" the rest of it.

As CaptainMarvel so eloquently pointed out once, it's like going to lunch with coworkers. You express where you want to go and argue about it for a while and maybe even have a vote, but some days the group goes somewhere you don't want to eat. You can try to persuade them some place else, but there comes a point where you just suck it up and get in the car, because whining about it isn't going to change things and is just going to piss everyone off, making it such that the next time they go to lunch, they may not care where you want to go.

das

Chew

Thanks, das.

Jadzia

I think the Democrats are too weak and far too often they let the Republicans control the debate. I think if they had won, they would have reacted to the Republicans questioning the legitimacy of the election, but they wouldn't have been the ones coming out saying how strong they are. That is the Democrats' problem-- they are just not as organized or monolithic in their message like the Republicans are with their talking points.

Now, the Dems feels like they can't say anything about the election without being painted by the GOP as "sore losers" or "divisive". So instead of framing the debate, they are always the meek ones letting the GOP define them.

Personally, I think the GOP have been a bunch of sore winners. Instead of being gracious in their victory, and acknowledging a close race by their challengers, they are still in attack mode. Hey, you guys won everything-- take off the gloves already.

It's very hypocritical to call for "unity" when you're still throwing stones.

das Monkey

... and hypocritical to blame the other side when you've been doing the same thing for years.

If you honestly believe the Democrats haven't been engaging in the same stuff and would be taking the high road, I don't know how much further the discussion can go. As a relatively independent person who supported both Clinton and Bush, it seems to me that the sides are not different from one another.

The problem the Democrats are having isn't with being "too weak" in the debate ... it's the arrogant assumption that their message is what America wants and all they need to do is hone their technique and stoop to the level of those sneaky Republicans. I don't buy that. The last 4 years have been a non-stop aggressive campaign against this President. They've thrown everything at him, loudly and forcefully, taking every "dirty trick" from the supposed Republican Handbook, and in the end, they lost ground with the voting public. The Democrats have to get over this victim complex, define their message, and sell it to the people.

I agree that the Democrats let the Republicans define them, but it's not because they're taking the high road. They're being sore losers every bit as much as the Republicans are being sore winners, and after the mother of all sore losers in 2000, it's not surprising. If the Democrats want to stop being defined by Republicans, a problem you clearly recognize, they need to start with losing on their own. Stop trying to frame this loss as great Republican strategy, or gay marriage amendments, or ballot fraud, or impending Theocracy, or the ignorant red states, and look inward. It's not about being more organized or monolithic. That was the mantra in 2000 and 2002, and that mentality isn't going to get them back in the White House IMO. They need to figure out their flaws -- and by "flaws" I don't mean "we're not as good at being evil like the Republicans" -- and come out swinging next time. Personally, I think they'd have great success with a pro-Democrat campaign instead of an anti-Republican one. If you can't beat Bush with that, you won't beat anyone.

The Republicans aren't the ones to blame for the Democrats being defined by their opponents. They dug that hole all on their own, and it sounds like they're still digging. Start making politics about what the Democrats are and what they believe, and start with this defeat. Examine the flaws in your candidate and your platform, and not in terms of what the Republicans are doing. Until you do that, you're still just defining yourselves by them, and they'll keep winning.

das

TheAllPurposeNothing

The problem with this analogy is that, yeah, I can suck it up and go to the place my co-workers have chosen. But while there, my choices continue. I can select something I like on the menu, pick the least offensive thing on the menu, or even choose not to eat. Or better yet, I can just choose to not go that day.

Applying the analogy to the topic at hand, not only do I have to go to a place I don't like, but I also have no choice of what I am served, I am forced to pay for it, my kids are forced to pay for it, I am forced-fed it, and told if I don't like it, well, tough sh*t.

das Monkey

Yeah, you can do all these things. The point of the analogy is that no matter how much you whine, they're going to lunch. Once the decision is made, complaining about it just causes ill will. You can either choose to go with them and find something good (or at least tolerable) on the menu or you can bitch about it for the whole hour and piss off your coworkers such that next time they don't really care where you want to go to lunch, because they know you're going to be a bitch about it if you don't get your way. If that's the course of action you take, though, don't go getting mad when they stop asking your opinion.

Applying the analogy to the topic at hand is the point of the analogy. You can pout about it and perceive the situation as being forced to do all these things, but it's not so. You have many choices available to you. Playing the victim and believing the country is telling you "tough shit" is certainly one of those choices, but it's the least productive and will not get the results you want. The result you want is to go to your favorite place for lunch tomorrow. The best way to accomplish that is by sucking it up, going to lunch with the coworkers, trying to find something on the menu you like, maybe hitting on a cute waitress, and trying again tomorrow. Hell, we went to your favorite place for lunch twice this week already. So yesterday's lunch tasted like cow feces. The crew voted to try again anyway. You can bitch about it all day, but how'd that work out for you last time? Quit worrying about yesterday's lunch, try to make the best of today's, and focus on where you want to go tomorrow, why, and how to convince everyone to go with you.

I'm hungry ...

das

Tommy Ceez

More on Andrew Sullivan...

Andrew is a Reagan/Thatcher conservative that became disappointed with Bush's pulling away from the principles of conservatism. That coupled with his displeasure with the CONDUCT of the Iraq war, and gay marriage caused him to support Kerry at the last minute. (He wrote a column that stated that he would vote Kerry because he felt that it would be healthire for the country if the Democrats had more than a titular stake in the War on Terror). The logic for his argument was strange, but whatever.

He's kinda anti-Bush on his website, but with limited TV time he uses it to defend Bush and the Bush Doctrine (there is no bigger fan on earth of the Bush Doctrine than Andrew Sullivan)

For thse who dont know him, as a point of trivia, Andrew is HIV positive and credits pharmacutical companies with his being alive today, so the whole evil corporation jive is another one of his pet peeves.

I have soured on Andrew Sullivan ever since he responded to one of my e-mails by calling me a moron (its a running theme with me, huh?) but his performance last night, and his ravaging of Noam Chomsky (I thought no one would have the balls on that show to do so) brought me back into the fold, and I have started re-reading his blog.

BTW...D.L. Hughley SUCKS...WTF is he talking about, California counts less than Nevada? I know Bill likes comedians, but that guy is a fucking moron.

TheAllPurposeNothing

Only problem there is that today's lunch is so damned expensive that even if we go to my restaurant tomorrow, we'll only likely be able to afford a bowl of hot steam.

Analogy aside, the problem is that the president has already stated his intentions. He believes he has a mandate and despite the fact that he is asking for cooperation across the aisle, he seems to be implying that compromise is not part of the plan. Its more of a join us or ***** you attitude.

If I really believed he welcomed debate and hashing out of details, I'd be more open to him as a president. But he historically has never done so, and it sounds like he sees no reason to begin.

Back to analogy, his implication is that we will never eat at my restaurant of choice as long as he has any say in it. And while at his restaurant, at best, I can eat scraps in the kitchen.