De. Brin: Some responses:
First, Democrats will have a difficult time rebranding themselves as the anti-government Party. After all, you have previously defined the Democrats on this List as being the Party that favored *every* big-government program over the past 100-or-so years over Republican opposition. That is an awful lot of history to jujitsu. 1) I somehow don't think that it is a winning strategy for the Democrats to argue that the nation aught to be preparing the armed forces to take on another major... mission. Moreover, such a debate would inevitably turn into a referendum on the merits of the Iraq War, and the Republicans have already won the last time that was tried. 2) You'll need your conspiracy theory regarding the purge of the Officer Corps to be picked up by the mainstream media and for some actual evidence supporting it to be gathered before a major political Party can start touting it. Considering that the US Armed Forces have famously been restricting retirements in order to meet personnel goals, I think that if a purge were occurring, it ought not to be too difficult to document. 3) There is no question that the biggest division in Republican ranks right now is the immigration issue. Again, the history of the Democrats makes this a difficult change to make. 4) I don't find government secrecy to be a resonating issue - but I could conceivalby be proven wrong on that point. >All that >screeching from 93-2000... and the result? ZERO indictments of >Clinton-era federal officials for acts performed while in office. 5) Dr. Brin, your point about indictments is just plain false. Even worse, you know that they are false, as you admitted your error on this point once before. I find it very disappointing that not only are you repeating false statements even after they have been corrected, but using those same false statements to lambaste others gratuitously. The indictment of Mike Espy, Clinton's Secretary of Agriculture for accepting bribes from companies regulated by his department, is here: http://www.oic.gov/SMALTZ/briefs/dismis5m.htm 6) You may have heard that there is some economic growth going on China.... And I would also point out that Goldman Sachs projected prices in a range from $50 to $105, *not* $105. Your source misrepresented the projection. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
