On Apr 11, 2005, at 4:47 PM, JDG wrote:
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.
You don't think it can be done? Even with the Liberal Media in the pocket of the Dems? Hmm, how about GWB, the Compassionate Conservative who Unites, not Divides, and Errs on the Side of Life?
"Liberal Media" my eye.
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.
I don't think that was the suggestion. The problem -- and it is valid -- is that US readiness for defense is at a nadir. Calling for rational behavior in military strategy is not at all the same thing as suggesting the armed forces should be preparing to go to war.
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.
They have? It doesn't seem so from this perspective.
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.
Why? I recall a major political party recently touting another crackpot idea, that a hunk of meat incapable of even swallowing on its own for the last 15 years had somehow miraculously begun to show signs of emergent consciousness. I even recall the mainstream (liberal?) media playing field hockey with emotions and ethics for over two weeks using that basis.
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.
I'd like to see documentation on it as well, as it happens; but your suggestion that "the media" cares about facts when there's a sensational story afoot is not particularly in keeping with observation.
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.
But I thought GWB was a uniter, *not* a divider. ;)
4) I don't find government secrecy to be a resonating issue - but I could
conceivalby be proven wrong on that point.
Well, there's continuing resistance to PATRIOT II, and there _is_ a steady minority of individuals who feel that the current administration is far too secretive.
It's maybe a little like CO emissions from vehicles -- you're always aware of them on a low-key level, but every once in a while someone will jog the awareness into a higher level of consciousness and you'll be very focused on them for a while, ideally when you're contemplating a new vehicle purchase.
5) Dr. Brin, your point about indictments is just plain false. EvenAll that screeching from 93-2000... and the result? ZERO indictments of Clinton-era federal officials for acts performed while in office.
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
Whoops, that's one. Are there more?
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.
You misrepresented the statement, which was this:
"This week we have seen a projected price spike of $105 from Goldman Sachs."
A *spike* is not the same thing as a *range*. It is, implicitly, a maximum value.
And, um, what has China to do with any of it anyway?
Re suborning -- an interesting concern, but it might be hard to pitch if one wants to, on one hand, request that the government be less overweening while, on the other hand, asking that it watchdog itself with another layer of possibly-useful scrutiny.
A more valid complaint is the internal subornation that goes on daily -- such as the way the credit card lobbyists have at last managed to later bankruptcy laws in favor of themselves and their predatory lending practices.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
