Subject: re: nader - american hero or spawn of satan?
yesterday you took on a presumedly 'green'
correspondent, who, like myself, is confused
about your inability to see that a 'democrat'
taking money / marching orders from the bfee
is a 'democrat' in name only. this
is best exemplified by your following 'retort':
> "I said a 'successful' Democrat. Clinton was the last one. He took
big money,
> and maybe bent a little, but he didn't break. He played the game
with skill."
here are excerpts from 2 articles you linked to yesterday:
from "Democrats pay the price for cowardice":
"... Democratic President Clinton won
the White House in 1992 with great promises
of fairness, then chickened out
on universal health care and gay rights in the military.
I don't think that happened.
Clinton didn't chicken out on health care - the pink tutu Democrats
got scared and agreed
with the GOP that trying to control health costs was the "greatest
travesty in all of history."
They said "We can't fix health care because it's 1/7 of the economy
- it's too big to fix,"
and the spineless Dems ran for cover instead of standing up and
fighting for what was right.
Why do you think the Gingrich Massacre occurred in 1994?
Clinton's own party refused to back their president.
Another of your examples is gays in the military.
There were gays in the military a hundred years before Clinton
was born.
Clinton didn't "want" gays in the military - he just wanted some
honesty in the broken system.
Doesn't anybody else remember powerful Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga)
saying this was NOT
going to be corrected as long as he was chairing the Armed Services
Committee?
Clinton might've faced a filibuster from his own damn party!
The Republicans hooted with glee when they saw the Democrats
turn on Clinton, and when
voters saw the Dems run from Clinton, they felt it was a good
idea to have a GOP congress
keep an eye on Clinton with his "radical" ideas about health
care and fairness for gays.
Clinton's biggest early problem is that he delivered on
his promises,
and his own party turned yellow and stabbed him right in the
back.
"...Clinton was a master Republicrat.
His administration ended welfare and helped sell more
US arms than ever to the rest of the
world. Little happened on gun control or public school
infrastructure. While the economy
did soar, so did the gap between the rich and the poor.
Most Republicans would envy such a record..."
Sure, to a left-winger, centrist Clinton looks like a republican
- what else is new?
In typical stab-our-guy Democratic logic, they looked for dark
clouds when Clinton delivered
the greatest economy this country ever saw. Funny
I should have to explain "non-Stickin'"
while the Democrats continue to stick that shiv into Clinton
- to this day.
from "Is democracy too much trouble?":
"... Do you think Bill's biggest blunder
was Monica when he knew the world was watching?
If you should think so, you would be
wrong. Bagman Ronald Reagan delivered the Fairness
Doctrine to his corporate sponsors on
a silver platter, but when Bill Clinton signed a bill
that allowed consolidation of media
ownership, a free press was finished in America..."
I don't know enough about the Communications Act to comment on
it.
I believe it was as large as The Patriot Act, and I doubt anyone
in Congress read that whole bill.
Maybe if Clinton gets that talk show they keep talking about
he can use a half hour each day to
explain his actions to Democrats who refuse to give him a break.
...and there you have just some of the 'contributions'
to our national welfare by a "successful democrat".
i'm not sure how "dirty" nader's hands
are (please do share) - but they sure as hell've never been, & never
will be, as dirty as them there 'big dog'
paws (tho i guess maybe it all depends on what your definition of 'bent
a little' is?)...
Since Nader has always swam in the kiddie pool, maybe his "crimes"
are just as shallow.
Mr. Three Percent made fewer deals, sure, that's because everyone
knew he was going nowhere.
Anyone out there have the details on Nader's dirty hands? 
Please put Nader's Dirty Hands in the subject box.
If I remember correctly, (big if) Nader either refused to release
his tax returns and investment records,
or he did release them and he was found to have invested
in the same companies he was trying to "rein in."
in closing: you're fun, you're entertaining,
your heart's in the right place...
but face it, dude - partisan / party politics
(thanks primarily to the 'republicrats')
has been nuthin' but a teenage wasteland
for quite a while now...
numb
But it's the system we have.
You can say baseball should have four strikes per batter, but
we play the game with three.
This pie-in-the-sky quality Greens have has never impressed me.
I'm old enough to remember candidates who got on their high horses
and preached,
"I refuse to take money from the special interest jackals," but
I can't remember their names
because they always lost and nobody ever heard of them again.
You can dream about "the way things should be," but this is the
real world,
and partially thanks to that wide-eyed dream-ism, we have Bush
in the White House.
So - will you deliver the White House to Bush again in 2004?
...but thanks for keeping it clean and non-personal
I enjoy a debate with a fella who can keep his head.