Another reason to vote against republicans

[Gusterfell]

The country is what's too far to the right.

Indeed. In most Western nations, even the mainstream of our Republican party would be seen as a far right fringe group. I find it laughable when people criticize Democrats/the media/Hollywood/what-have-you as being liberal. Like I said elsewhere recently, most Americans have no idea what the true left wing is like, and what passes for liberalism here is just slightly left of center.

[runawayjim]

I just don't see where the Democratic Party is so liberal. I put the Democratic Party squarely in the middle, on average, and the Republican Party on the far right. The Green Party is the more liberal choice in this country. If I didn't feel that a Green vote is a vote for the Republican Party, I would vote Green. The country is what's too far to the right.

it's not that the democrats are too liberal... it's that the 2 party politics in this country have turned all the issues into black and white with no room for grey areas, when that's not how things really work. the 2 party system was originally to place 2 candidates against each other in an organized manner. it's turned into 2 groups who think one way on all issues, and that's the opposite of what the other thinks. and because it's so firmly set to 2 parties, it's nearly impossible for alternate candidates to get their voices heard, when they might actually be able to win the election. they need to prove financial ability and have a certain percentage of backers in order to even get to a debate (which is how perot did). but without the money, they can't even get their messages heard.

[monsoon]

Honestly the problem isn't in the parties. The parties do what the people allow them to do and they are only one election away from being changed. The real problem is the bulk of American people who have become disengaged from what is important in this country, lack the ambition to do the hard things that are right for everyone (not themselves), and wallow in gossip, tabliod journalism, triviality, worship of American Idol and sports stars, and generally anything that provides instant gratification of desires. A great deal of the Ameircan society has become almost childlike in its level of sophistication, and I see it getting worse with each new generation reaching adulthood.

So what are the parties to do? Right now we have a party that is in control that stays in power because it appeals to the worst in people, i.e. hate, religious fanaticsm, intolerance, we've got ours and be damned the rest, etc. and which serves and is financed by the economic elite of this country. (which is lauging all the way to the bank). And we have a party that consists of almost every other movement outside this group that can't figure out how to put togeher a cohesive message that appeals to an electorate that I have described above. With the failure of Jimmy Carter's Admistration due to the Iran hostage crisis, Democrats gave up their traditional populist platform, and have been losing out ever since.

I can go on on this, but the bottom line is it won't last. If we "stay the course" so to speak, this country really risks being reduced to irrelevancy and our economy being reduced to shambles. People being born today may look back at this period as the last days of the American life the rest of the world used to admire and want to emulate.

[MadVlad]

Honestly the problem isn't in the parties. The parties do what the people allow them to do and they are only one election away from being changed. The real problem is the bulk of American people who have become disengaged from what is important in this country, lack the ambition to do the hard things that are right for everyone (not themselves), and wallow in gossip, tabliod journalism, triviality, worship of American Idol and sports stars, and generally anything that provides instant gratification of desires. A great deal of the Ameircan society has become almost childlike in its level of sophistication, and I see it getting worse with each new generation reaching adulthood.

A truer statement could not have been made....

[richyb83]

^ Very well said.

[Chtimi]

Another reason to vote against republicans ? Well, your elections are important for the world, there are polls in France to know which candidate we prefer.

The Democrats allways win here, with about 75 %. Why ? Probably because our demands are complicated.

A candidate couldn't arrive saying "I'll reduce taxes, God bless France." Everybody would make fun of him. A candidate wearing a suit and a tie all the time is politically dead. For many reasons the Republican candidates are simply un-votable.

Bill Clinton is most appreciated because he's a little bit less conformist than others, and he has a roguish look. We suggested to him to be candidate in France, he has the right since he was governor of Arkansas. I am sure he wouldn't restore the capital punishment here, and he can have love affairs French don't care of the politicians' private life.

[MadVlad]

Bill Clinton is most appreciated because he's a little bit less conformist than others, and he has a roguish look. We suggested to him to be candidate in France, he has the right since he was governor of Arkansas. I am sure he wouldn't restore the capital punishment here, and he can have love affairs French don't care of the politicians' private life.

I'm unsure how being Governor of Arkansas makes someone elligible to be the PM or whatever of France...

[Chtimi]

I'm unsure how being Governor of Arkansas makes someone elligible to be the PM or whatever of France...

I confirm. All the governors of a state created in the former French Louisiana have the right to run as a candidate for the French presidential elections.

[Chtimi]

In most Western nations, even the mainstream of our Republican party would be seen as a far right fringe group. I find it laughable when people criticize Democrats/the media/Hollywood/what-have-you as being liberal. Like I said elsewhere recently, most Americans have no idea what the true left wing is like, and what passes for liberalism here is just slightly left of center.

French consider that a part of the Republican party is at the extrem right, and your Democrat party is clearly in the center.

Otherwise, we have the same politics and some people claim the recognition of the abstention (generally about 20 % for the presidential elections and 30 % for the others elections).

The PS (socialist party) is divided in Ouistes (those who voted "yes" to a so-called "capitalist" European Constitution) and Nonistes ("no". They would prefer an European Republic).

At my opinion the Democrats are also divided like that.

eg Bush and Kerry are conservators into their respective parties and both Skulls & Bones from Yale. A conservator like Joe Lieberman was punished in Connecticut by Democratic voters who rejected him exactly like in France Socialists voters have rejected the former socialist prime minister Lionel Jospin ; for the same reason : "we want true socialists / democrats". Ned Lamont won because he's a real Democratic challenger. It was an important message to the Democratic old guard.

No wonder : "Jonathan Tasini a REAL Democrat for US SENATE". But Hillary Clinton is more cautious than Lieberman and his Bush' kiss, she just drank vodka with John McCain.

The Republicans are also divided, like in the UMP - the main party at right in France, stoup-frogs and capitalists hate each other.

[Snowguy716]

Does that mean somebody from Minnesota could run for office in France? We were also part of the Louisiana Purchase... well, part of the state. Anywhere west and south of the MIssissippi river was.. so Minneapolis, go for it.. St. Paul, you can't run.

I live 1/4 mile (1/3 Km) north of the Mississippi River on soil that has never been in control by France.. so, I couldn't run either. And I can't speak French... and I've never been there. That might be kind of hard.

But either way, that's really funny.

Do Louisiana and France still have any significant ties? I know many states have ties with the countries that many of their citizens came from.. Minnesota, for example, has very strong ties with Norway and Sweden. (Norway calls Minnesota "Norway's little colony"

[Chtimi]

Does that mean somebody from Minnesota could run for office in France? We were also part of the Louisiana Purchase... well, part of the state. Anywhere west and south of the MIssissippi river was.. so Minneapolis, go for it.. St. Paul, you can't run.

I live 1/4 mile (1/3 Km) north of the Mississippi River on soil that has never been in control by France.. so, I couldn't run either. And I can't speak French... and I've never been there. That might be kind of hard.

But either way, that's really funny.

Do Louisiana and France still have any significant ties? I know many states have ties with the countries that many of their citizens came from.. Minnesota, for example, has very strong ties with Norway and Sweden. (Norway calls Minnesota "Norway's little colony"

Amazing. You know better the ancient New France's geography than us. We learn only the history of the United States in history class and also about the immigration in the States and US economy in English and geography classes at the high school.

In the 18th C. the territories between Ohio and Mississippi was 'Province of Quebec'. The East of Mississippi and south of Saint-Louis was Louisiana.

It seems there are not a lot of French in the United States, and no lobby, that's why it was easy for the neocons to make a propaganda against us.

In fact the French are quite American while they are not integrated in Canada. Who knows the Marx Brothers' father was Simon Marrix nicknamed Frenchy because he's from Alsace, occupied by Germany by 1900. Some French names have changed. Luck or Luquette is from Loup, Gooden frome Gaudet, Bidrine from V

[monsoon]

The anti-French cheerleading that occured in the USA prior to the Iraq invasion was exactly what I was talking about above. The Republican party managed to make the war issue a France vs the USA issue which led to the silly nonsense of pouring French wine into sewers and the renaming of french fries to freedom fries. During all of this, the fact that the USA, for the first time in our history, was going to make an unprovoked attack on another nation, got lost.

Most Americans do not realize the American Revolution from the King of England would not have happened without significant financing and military support from France and that both countries share a huge amount of common history and support for each other. It's a shame the GW Bush and his cronies have probably done more damage to that relationship than any other president in our history. I really don't hold Jacques Chirac in high regard either, but at least he is not a poodle to Bush. (thank goodness)

[Chtimi]

The anti-French cheerleading that occured in the USA prior to the Iraq invasion was exactly what I was talking about above. The Republican party managed to make the war issue a France vs the USA issue which led to the silly nonsense of pouring French wine into sewers and the renaming of french fries to freedom fries. During all of this, the fact that the USA, for the first time in our history, was going to make an unprovoked attack on another nation, got lost.

Most Americans do not realize the American Revolution from the King of England would not have happened without significant financing and military support from France and that both countries share a huge amount of common history and support for each other. It's a shame the GW Bush and his cronies have probably done more damage to that relationship than any other president in our history. I really don't hold Jacques Chirac in high regard either, but at least he is not a poodle to Bush. (thank goodness)

We didn't know you said "french" fries !

You are not alone to not hold Jacques Chirac (booo) in high regard, he has a popularity between 15 and 20 % here.

My tought is these neocons was to die with the soviet union, but try to survive by dividing American citizens and manipulating opinion, like with the gay issue "yes or no for gay marriage" becomes "yes or no to forbid gay marriage" it's misleading and dangerous. As usual they show their muscle, but in fact they are panic-stricken because the true Republicans (Reaganites and McCain) are back and, I hope, the true Democrats.

[runawayjim]

We didn't know you said "french" fries !

they're french cut... not french from france, which is why it made it more ridiculous that they stopped calling them that.

[Snowguy716]

You wanna talk about bull headed?Jesse Ventura was not a good governor..

I did agree with him on a few things though. He thought we should end the embargo on Cuba and went to Cuba and met with Fidel Castro and authorized shipment of grains to Cuba.

He also took a $3bn budget surplus and put it into the general fund for education and then drastically lowered property taxes while sending small rebate checks out to every Minnesotan family. This is a good idea when you have a booming economy and you can't manage to figure out that all economic booms come to an end and budget surpluses quickly turn into deficits. Three words: Rainy Day Fund!

Pawlenty has been worse though.

[Snowguy716]

Democrats are doing well in the polls right now. They will still be ahead on election day, but the road is about to get rough. I just call this the Kennedy strategy on Republicans part...

Start by painting yourself as the warm and fuzzy candidate.. you know.. independent and bi-partisan. Then about mid-September start smearing your opponent as being soft on crime, dig up all sorts of negative things. Phase out the positive, I'm the warm/fuzzy guy ads.

Mid-October through election day... show ads with Democrats in bed with Osama bin Laden and basically give out the message that "a vote for democrats is a vote for the terrorists"...

Not gonna lie.. it's a great strategy for the herd. But the dems have caught on. They'll be expecting it and I think our republican senate candidate, Makeover Mark "Not as republican as my record shows" Kennedy is gonna go home a loser in November. (Most recent poll shows a 7.5% lead for the dem who has 51%)

[Snowguy716]

I think this interview of all the candidates in Minnesota's 5th congressional district shows how Republicans stoop to new levels each day to personally attack other candidates.

http://mirror4.video.blip.tv/MinnesotaStor...nAlmanac282.mov

It's obvious to me that Republicans can't run on issues in this election. There is not one issue that Republicans have shown true leadership on. They've failed in Iraq, they've failed on terrorism, they've failed on medicare, they've done nothing for social security (probably the best thing they well, umm... didn't do), failed on education, and they've failed on being moral leaders in this country despite a lot of "Christian" gloating and pandering.

Alan Fine is the Republican candidate for Minnesota's 5th house district. He know he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning in Minnesota's most liberal district, but rather than focus on issues like the other THREE candidates, he focuses on attacking Keith Ellison as being a muslim extremist devoted to hurting America by associating people he was loosely associated with while doing things like organizing the million man march, which was an event put on by African Americans for the betterment of African Americans, and had nothing to do with islamic or black extremism.

All three other candidates (Independent, Green, and Democrat) try to get Fine back to focusing on issues, and he just won't budge.

The Republican party of Minnesota is currently working on associating all democrats with Keith Ellison, after they smear him. The REPUBLICANS have bumper stickers coming out to hand out to people that say "Vote Klobuchar, Hatch, and Ellison" simply to tie their names together as they attack one candidate personally.

You know your party is on the fringe and in danger of disappearing completely when all the other contenders are joining together and agreeing with eachother on the issues and you avoid talking about issues and instead engage in name calling and swiftboating.

It's dispicible. What a bunch of childish, selfish, hubristic idiots. I can't think of one Republican I would possibly dream of voting for in this election.... because as I've said before, while democrats, greens, and independents want better healthcare, a better environment, changing course in Iraq, implementing the 9/11 commission's recommendations to protect us from terrorists... and the Republicans have????

Name calling, taking land away from Native Americans, banning gay marriage, and abortion.

Go get 'em guys! Keep doing what you're doing! Watch this country get over you like a bad hangover.

[Chtimi]

You really think its George telling her what to do?

I have a feeling Bush is just as much a puppet as Rice is at this point. This government is really being run by three men, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove.

I think Bush has allways listened Rice and she has more authority over him than Donald Rumsfeld who has... some problems, remember ?

"As we know,

There are known knowns.

There are things we know we know.

We also know

There are known unknowns.

That is to say

We know there are some things

We do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns,

The ones we don't know

We don't know.

Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense briefing

I think what you'll find,

I think what you'll find is,

Whatever it is we do substantively,

There will be near-perfect clarity

As to what it is.

And it will be known,

And it will be known to the Congress,

And it will be known to you,

Probably before we decide it,

But it will be known.

Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing"

What the hell is that supposed to mean ? Another reason to vote against republicans.

[monsoon]

I think Rice has zero pull with the President. Her value to the Administration is that she is a very eloquent speaker that can speak forever and not say anything relevant at all. She never ever answers any direct questions unless it will score political points for Bush and because she is a Black woman, there are limits on how hard anyone will push her for an answer lest they be accused of being a bully. She is the perfect "face" for the President.

However because she serves as nothing more than a mouthpiece, her own talents, which are probably very good, are wasted. This was most evident during the war with Lebanon and Israel where essentially her presence in the Middle East, in Europe, and at the UN were irrelevant in what happened. The USA showed absolutely no leadership in stopping this unnecessary war and as a result, Rice was a bit player in the process.

Rice is very talented woman to have gotten to where she is considering her background. But she knows where her bread is buttered and she isn't going to do anything to go against the neo-cons that are pulling Bush's strings. Powell made this mistake, is now gone as a result. The GOP has effectively neutered him so that the once promising future he had in the party has evaporated. Rice won't make this mistake.

[Chtimi]

I think Rice has zero pull with the President. Her value to the Administration is that she is a very eloquent speaker that can speak forever and not say anything relevant at all. She never ever answers any direct questions unless it will score political points for Bush and because she is a Black woman, there are limits on how hard anyone will push her for an answer lest they be accused of being a bully. She is the perfect "face" for the President.

However because she serves as nothing more than a mouthpiece, her own talents, which are probably very good, are wasted. This was most evident during the war with Lebanon and Israel where essentially her presence in the Middle East, in Europe, and at the UN were irrelevant in what happened. The USA showed absolutely no leadership in stopping this unnecessary war and as a result, Rice was a bit player in the process.

Rice is very talented woman to have gotten to where she is considering her background. But she knows where her bread is buttered and she isn't going to do anything to go against the neo-cons that are pulling Bush's strings. Powell made this mistake, is now gone as a result. The GOP has effectively neutered him so that the once promising future he had in the party has evaporated. Rice won't make this mistake.

I understand your remark and I agree with the most.

But you don't think that C. Rice succeed where C. Powell failed ? Suppose that the Department of State receive an important and confidential information, instead to report on it directly to the President, she would inform only - or first, the Department of Defense ?

I have never thought that people like Rove, Wolfovitch or Rumsfeld had ever had any consideration for their own country, everything can be weapons to serve their love for money, including the flag, the Congress, the allies, the fear and God. Not just in the United States but in France too, there are unconditionnal fans of these neocons, like in a sect. They have no value and no scruple. I remember, in September 2005, D. Rumsfeld congratulated Turkey on its efforts in favor of the human rights. The efforts in question ? The abolition of the death penalty.

[Snowguy716]

Another example of Republican lying and deceit:

They have handed out literature that says that Minnesota DFL 6th congressional candidate Patty Wetterling didn't vote in elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and then goes on to say "Ultra liberal Patty Wetterling could vote to raise your taxes."

Well, it's true that Patty didn't vote in primary elections in 2000 and 2002. And in 2004 she voted both in the primary and in the general election, but the GOP said that she had not indicated a presidential preference in the presidential caucus, which neither affects the delagates choice nor are those preferences recorded on a name basis.

I wouldn't seem so one-sided if Patty Wetterling had done anything to smear the other side, but she hasn't.

[monsoon]

I am flabbergasted that so many people still support this party. President Bush has borrowed more money than all other 42 presidents combined. Doesn't anyone realize what this has done to our country?

[Charlotteman]

I'm utterly astonished that the Republican party gets away with claiming to be fiscally responsible.

Ronald Reagan, Rep president 1980-1988. Ran up a total budget deficit larger than all previous presidents combined.

George H.W. Bush, Rep president (1988-1992) Ran up a total budget deficit larger then all other presidents combined before him, including Reagan.

George W. Bush, Rep-Hell (2000-) Has run up a total budget deficit larger than all previous presidents combined, including his father.

The media should be all over this!!!!!! This is the biggest joke of our time---that the Reps are so good with the economy~~~

[peaceloveunderstanding]

I just hope that there is exceptional division so there is some degree of accountability, but none of the ideas that the left are proposing get passed: No living wage, no national healthcare, no more social programs, and tax cuts get extended.

[Gusterfell]

I just hope that there is exceptional division so there is some degree of accountability, but none of the ideas that the left are proposing get passed: No living wage, no national healthcare, no more social programs, and tax cuts get extended.