Comments on: What We’re Up Against http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/ Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration. Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:35:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2110 Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:19:34 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2110 Cody, if Hillary gets 51%, Diebold will "translate" it into 46%. Our only hope is a candidate who will get such a commanding majority, in the pre-election and exit polls (this is critical) as well as in the actual voting, that Diebold won't dare try anything funny - or if they do, they will be found out. Even this is not a guarantee - look at how the effete chickenhawk Saxby Chambliss magically picked up a 12% vote swing against the hugely popular war hero Max Cleland the day before the elections in 2002. The rethug vote stealers are pretty brazen, and slobus vulgaris americans is numb and apathetic. Who is the ideal candidate who would defeat Diebold? I haven't a clue. I wish Howard Dean would run again, though. Cody, if Hillary gets 51%, Diebold will “translate” it into 46%. Our only hope is a candidate who will get such a commanding majority, in the pre-election and exit polls (this is critical) as well as in the actual voting, that Diebold won’t dare try anything funny - or if they do, they will be found out. Even this is not a guarantee - look at how the effete chickenhawk Saxby Chambliss magically picked up a 12% vote swing against the hugely popular war hero Max Cleland the day before the elections in 2002. The rethug vote stealers are pretty brazen, and slobus vulgaris americans is numb and apathetic.

Who is the ideal candidate who would defeat Diebold? I haven’t a clue. I wish Howard Dean would run again, though.

]]> by: Fred http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2109 Mon, 16 Jan 2006 04:13:53 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2109 Maha, I don't plan to vote for Hillary because she is a Clinton, period. I don't want four years of Bush followed by eight years of Bill Clinton followed by eight years of Bush followed by 4-8 years of Hillary followed by 4-8 years of Jeb Bush. At that rate, Jenna Bush will be ready after 2020 or so. The Presidency is not a toy to be traded for generations between two families. We can do much better as a country. Maha,

I don’t plan to vote for Hillary because she is a Clinton, period. I don’t want four years of Bush followed by eight years of Bill Clinton followed by eight years of Bush followed by 4-8 years of Hillary followed by 4-8 years of Jeb Bush. At that rate, Jenna Bush will be ready after 2020 or so. The Presidency is not a toy to be traded for generations between two families. We can do much better as a country.

]]> by: masaccio http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2108 Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:39:57 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2108 I don't like Hillary and will never vote for her. The thing that turned me off was an article in the Washington Monthly several years ago about the health care reform she managed in the early nineties. It turns out she followed the ideas and the procedure for working suggested by Ira Magaziner, and she failed to recognize that the ideas which came out of the bad process were themselves bad. The article suggests that Magaziner was the kind of leftist elitist that I remember from the Viet Nam era. That lack of political sensibility has never changed. She would be a bad president. I don’t like Hillary and will never vote for her. The thing that turned me off was an article in the Washington Monthly several years ago about the health care reform she managed in the early nineties. It turns out she followed the ideas and the procedure for working suggested by Ira Magaziner, and she failed to recognize that the ideas which came out of the bad process were themselves bad. The article suggests that Magaziner was the kind of leftist elitist that I remember from the Viet Nam era.

That lack of political sensibility has never changed. She would be a bad president.

]]> by: Gotham Image http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2094 Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:01:00 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2094 Incidentally - Mort Zuckerman, before he was cut off, was using Hillary as an example on the McLaughlin Group to illustrated that there is no serious opposition to Bush on Iraq. His was a variant on the old "Even Hillary doesn't think we can pull out..." You know that formulation? Mort's at the nexis between publishing, business, and politics - so he always has a good read on what a certain sector of the elite thinks. Incidentally - Mort Zuckerman, before he was cut off, was using Hillary as an example on the McLaughlin Group to illustrated that there is no serious opposition to Bush on Iraq. His was a variant on the old “Even Hillary doesn’t think we can pull out…”

You know that formulation? Mort’s at the nexis between publishing, business, and politics - so he always has a good read on what a certain sector of the elite thinks.

]]> by: Gotham Image http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2092 Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:43:46 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2092 Maha, Another reason many Republicans want Hillary to win (the nomination) is that she represents so much that is hated by hardcore conservatives, even though she never really acts on what she represents. So the conservative groups raise more money on her image, than they ever could raise against transparently decent public servant like the liberal Senator Feingold.. No matter how much Hillary tacks to the center, the right wing knows, in their heart, that is not her main sail. In a way, it's funny. Hillary has maintained loyalty on the left, as she continues to make moves to the right, because some on the left hope she is tactically insincere, while many on the right know she is tactically insincere. Also - Nominating a woman who supports the war, which is the main issue, will serve as a future premise, for conservatives to claim that oppposition the Iraq war is only from a leftists fringe and an isolationist right, but is supported by the mainstream of both parties- This is a neat trick for a war that is opposed by most people. Maha,

Another reason many Republicans want Hillary to win (the nomination) is that she represents so much that is hated by hardcore conservatives, even though she never really acts on what she represents. So the conservative groups raise more money on her image, than they ever could raise against transparently decent public servant like the liberal Senator Feingold.. No matter how much Hillary tacks to the center, the right wing knows, in their heart, that is not her main sail.

In a way, it’s funny. Hillary has maintained loyalty on the left, as she continues to make moves to the right, because some on the left hope she is tactically insincere, while many on the right know she is tactically insincere.

Also - Nominating a woman who supports the war, which is the main issue, will serve as a future premise, for conservatives to claim that oppposition the Iraq war is only from a leftists fringe and an isolationist right, but is supported by the mainstream of both parties- This is a neat trick for a war that is opposed by most people.

]]> by: Swami http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2091 Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:38:04 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2091 Well, as it stands now, I couldn't get behind Hillary as a candidate. Her support of the Iraq war negatively trumps anything postive she has to offer. And to me, she's not looking out for America. I don't percieve her as sincere. Trust is important to me in a leader and Hillary is a political animal. I think America would do well to get in tune with her feminine side. I'm not comfortable with a high testosterone America. It clouds reason. Well, as it stands now, I couldn’t get behind Hillary as a candidate. Her support of the Iraq war negatively trumps anything postive she has to offer. And to me, she’s not looking out for America. I don’t percieve her as sincere. Trust is important to me in a leader and Hillary is a political animal.

I think America would do well to get in tune with her feminine side. I’m not comfortable with a high testosterone America. It clouds reason.

]]> by: D.R. Marvel http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2090 Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:26 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2090 Can't stand Hillary, though... And I was never all that high on her Old Man, either... Both the Clintons are what used to be known as "Rockefeeler Republicans"... There MIGHT be some small hope for Chelsea... Can’t stand Hillary, though…

And I was never all that high on her Old Man, either…

Both the Clintons are what used to be known as “Rockefeeler Republicans”…

There MIGHT be some small hope for Chelsea…

]]> by: Gotham Image http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2089 Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:07 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2089 Most Republicans that I know want Hillary to win, for two reasons. On the central issue of the day, Iraq - she is Bush lite and her support of the overall policy, undercuts the central critique of the war, that it based on lies. Hillary is also not very honest herself. She is insincere when she claims to be 'shocked, shocked,' about misleading WH information. But secondly - Hilllary will lose the general election and since she represents so much, her defeat will be able to portrayed as a repudiation of all that those who defeat her claim she represents. Most Republicans that I know want Hillary to win, for two reasons. On the central issue of the day, Iraq - she is Bush lite and her support of the overall policy, undercuts the central critique of the war, that it based on lies. Hillary is also not very honest herself. She is insincere when she claims to be ’shocked, shocked,’ about misleading WH information.

But secondly - Hilllary will lose the general election and since she represents so much, her defeat will be able to portrayed as a repudiation of all that those who defeat her claim she represents.

]]> by: D.R. Marvel http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2088 Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:25:17 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2088 What the hell you mean, Maha??? I LIKE Turnips... What the hell you mean, Maha???

I LIKE Turnips…

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2085 Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:25:37 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/14/what-were-up-against/#comment-2085 chromatius -- in 2008, either a Republican or a Democrat will win. The way we run elections pretty much ensures that two parties have a lock. If you want to work toward changing the system so that third parties can become competitive, great. But that's not going to happen by 2008. chromatius — in 2008, either a Republican or a Democrat will win. The way we run elections pretty much ensures that two parties have a lock. If you want to work toward changing the system so that third parties can become competitive, great. But that’s not going to happen by 2008.

]]>