Steve Schacher

Regarding Congress: That's the difference between either: 1) split chambers, 2) split branches, and 3) one-party control. The difference, to me, is that they are all the result of the vote, so if the people choose to elect the same party to all branches, then what they want is alignment of policy. If the people choose to split the chambers/branches, then they are saying that they want gridlock. Right now, by a thin margin, they appear to want alignment. Now, one can also argue the law of unintended consequences. Gerrymandering of House districts by incumbants has virtually locked in the current Republican majority until 2010. That is not the fault of Republicans or Democrats, but of incumbants protecting their own power. On the Senate side, that chamber was broken by the 17th amendment that made Senators popularly elected instead of appointed by state legislatures. You'd get more cooperative government if the Senators didn't all behave like mini-Presidents. With state appointment of Senators, they would be less likely to run around chasing national party issues at the expense of their own state issues. The media: Have you forgotten the days of Rick Kaplan as the head of CNN? Kaplan was the biggest Friend Of Bill that there was. CNN was the favored press outlet for the Clinton Administration. Why else would they have both James Carville and Paul Begala as political pundits? Also, when Kaplan was at ABC, he brought in George Stephanopoulis to run their Sunday show THIS WEEK, ousting Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson. So, this administration chose to prefer FNC instead of their predecessor's favored CNN. Is that a crime? It seems to me to be sour grapes by fallen-from-grace CNN that they are no longer first in line for scoops.

Regarding Congress: That's the difference between either: 1) split chambers, 2) split branches, and 3) one-party control. The difference, to me, is that they are all the result of the vote, so if the people choose to elect the same party to all branches, then what they want is alignment of policy. If the people choose to split the chambers/branches, then they are saying that they want gridlock. Right now, by a thin margin, they appear to want alignment. Now, one can also argue the law of unintended consequences. Gerrymandering of House districts by incumbants has virtually locked in the current Republican majority until 2010. That is not the fault of Republicans or Democrats, but of incumbants protecting their own power. On the Senate side, that chamber was broken by the 17th amendment that made Senators popularly elected instead of appointed by state legislatures. You'd get more cooperative government if the Senators didn't all behave like mini-Presidents. With state appointment of Senators, they would be less likely to run around chasing national party issues at the expense of their own state issues. The media: Have you forgotten the days of Rick Kaplan as the head of CNN? Kaplan was the biggest Friend Of Bill that there was. CNN was the favored press outlet for the Clinton Administration. Why else would they have both James Carville and Paul Begala as political pundits? Also, when Kaplan was at ABC, he brought in George Stephanopoulis to run their Sunday show THIS WEEK, ousting Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson. So, this administration chose to prefer FNC instead of their predecessor's favored CNN. Is that a crime? It seems to me to be sour grapes by fallen-from-grace CNN that they are no longer first in line for scoops.

quote:EXACTLY and that's exactly why this nation needs a Democrat in the White House. When that happens we'll get back the watchdog element in the Congress. THANK YOU! Thank you Steve, you are SO RIGHT! I think we agree on the points, but differ on the conclusions. You appear to feel that the reason to have a Democrat in the White House is that the press favors the Democrat and government would operate more smoothly with a Democrat due to the press going back to doing their job with a Democrat. I feel that the press's favoritism is compromising their ability to do their jobs either way. The press also shifted away from traditional watchdog roles during the Clinton Administration because he kept inviting them to all the lavish state dinners that he threw. The press started cozying up to Clinton (and the Democrats by extension) because they wanted access to the White House and felt that if they were too critical they would lose that access to a competitor (plus lose access to the good parties). One of the first criticisms of the DC elite after Bush was elected was how the nightlife died. Bush goes to bed early and there aren't the lavish parties that Clinton used to throw. I think another reason that you might think that Congress would go back to traditional oversight with a Democrat is that Democrats feel that the positions of power are rightfully theirs, and that the Republican control is an aberration. This is why they are stalling on everything, hoping to delay judges until a Democrat regains control, and now hoping to delay confirming a new CIA chief until Democrats regain control. I feel that it is wrong to give into a Democrat just because the Democrats are obstructing the normal flow of operations and that electing a Democrat would stop the obstructing. That's almost extortion.

quote:EXACTLY and that's exactly why this nation needs a Democrat in the White House. When that happens we'll get back the watchdog element in the Congress. THANK YOU! Thank you Steve, you are SO RIGHT! I think we agree on the points, but differ on the conclusions. You appear to feel that the reason to have a Democrat in the White House is that the press favors the Democrat and government would operate more smoothly with a Democrat due to the press going back to doing their job with a Democrat. I feel that the press's favoritism is compromising their ability to do their jobs either way. The press also shifted away from traditional watchdog roles during the Clinton Administration because he kept inviting them to all the lavish state dinners that he threw. The press started cozying up to Clinton (and the Democrats by extension) because they wanted access to the White House and felt that if they were too critical they would lose that access to a competitor (plus lose access to the good parties). One of the first criticisms of the DC elite after Bush was elected was how the nightlife died. Bush goes to bed early and there aren't the lavish parties that Clinton used to throw. I think another reason that you might think that Congress would go back to traditional oversight with a Democrat is that Democrats feel that the positions of power are rightfully theirs, and that the Republican control is an aberration. This is why they are stalling on everything, hoping to delay judges until a Democrat regains control, and now hoping to delay confirming a new CIA chief until Democrats regain control. I feel that it is wrong to give into a Democrat just because the Democrats are obstructing the normal flow of operations and that electing a Democrat would stop the obstructing. That's almost extortion.

quote:finding any "reporters" worthy of the title is a real chore. Nobody reports anything anymore, nobody investigates a damn thing. It's just another symptom of the decay of democracy that has occured over the last fifteen or so years. I guess in a way we deserve the press we have because the public has made it plain that they want to be spun. I have to agree with Takvah here. The media does not do its job anymore. They selectively report when it serves their agenda, and they give passes to their favorites when others get the full media treatment for doing essentially the same things. The media is the only non-government occupation mentioned in the Constitution. The reason we were given a free press was to be the watchdog over the government for the people. However, politics today has gotten so polarized, probably largely do to the fact that with only one worldwide superpower the office of the presidet of the United States is the most powerful position in the world, that the watchdog element of reporting is no longer the agenda all by itself. What I see is a media that is apologist when their favorites are caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, and attack dogs when their disfavorites are caught. Further on the watchdog aspect, the Congress was supposed to exercise an oversight role on the presidency, but the Congress has lapsed into more of a reactive mode, using oversight to blame and point fingers after the fact, instead of using oversight proactively to ensure that good practices are being followed as they are occuring. Reporters aren't holding Congress to blame for their lack of proactive oversight either.

quote:finding any "reporters" worthy of the title is a real chore. Nobody reports anything anymore, nobody investigates a damn thing. It's just another symptom of the decay of democracy that has occured over the last fifteen or so years. I guess in a way we deserve the press we have because the public has made it plain that they want to be spun. I have to agree with Takvah here. The media does not do its job anymore. They selectively report when it serves their agenda, and they give passes to their favorites when others get the full media treatment for doing essentially the same things. The media is the only non-government occupation mentioned in the Constitution. The reason we were given a free press was to be the watchdog over the government for the people. However, politics today has gotten so polarized, probably largely do to the fact that with only one worldwide superpower the office of the presidet of the United States is the most powerful position in the world, that the watchdog element of reporting is no longer the agenda all by itself. What I see is a media that is apologist when their favorites are caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, and attack dogs when their disfavorites are caught. Further on the watchdog aspect, the Congress was supposed to exercise an oversight role on the presidency, but the Congress has lapsed into more of a reactive mode, using oversight to blame and point fingers after the fact, instead of using oversight proactively to ensure that good practices are being followed as they are occuring. Reporters aren't holding Congress to blame for their lack of proactive oversight either.

quote:Or is it you are goint to tell me the stations and broadcasts are "owned" by specific parties?I don't do that. All news reporting is tainted these days. I asked because it is my observation that on the Fox News Channel, they seem to try to balance out the guests 1 for 1, but on the other channels it's like 3 liberals to one conservative. Having 3:1 in your favor would make for a more cooperative conversation on your side of the discussion.

quote:Or is it you are goint to tell me the stations and broadcasts are "owned" by specific parties?I don't do that. All news reporting is tainted these days. I asked because it is my observation that on the Fox News Channel, they seem to try to balance out the guests 1 for 1, but on the other channels it's like 3 liberals to one conservative. Having 3:1 in your favor would make for a more cooperative conversation on your side of the discussion.

quote:The issue is flip flopping right? I just want to be clear on that. So my response is two fold. First I must say that I think that Kerry's manipulation of his own words is disgraceful and shows a weak will. People do change their minds. Yes, they do, but on every topic that's questioned, sometimes back and forth, multiple times? quote:1. Opposed the 9/11 commission. Now acts as if it was all his idea.Even the Pearl Harbor Commission waited until WWII was over before reviewing what happened. If Bush was opposed to the 9/11 Commission, it was because of the leaked Senate Intelligence Committee memo from last year that told of a Democrat plan to use commissions and studies to "pull the Republicans along" until they could "pull the trigger" in 2004. Don't you remember that memo, written at the request of Vice-Chairman Jay Rockefeller? Can you blame Bush for not wanting to walk into a known Democrat trap? quote:3. Opposed making gay marriage a matter for the Federal government (go back to the debates). Proclaimed that it was a matter for the states to decide. Now he supports a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BAN IT.I'd say that his hand was forced by a few activist judges in Massachusetts, and a rogue mayor in San Francisco. I don't recall the President changing his mind on this until other elected officials started to blatently flout the law and disregard their own state constitutions and/or ballot propositions. quote:4. Said that American Troops should not be used for the purposes of nation building. Now it is the ONLY REASON we went to Iraq.I remember when Bush said that in the third debate against Al Gore (the townhall format). However, 9/11 happened, which was a big factor in this. For both Afghanistan and Iraq, when we bomb out the current regime, we have to replace it with another one that can keep the millions of people from starving to death. You can debate the merits of going into Iraq, but the fact still remains that we had to do something for the people once the overthrow was complete. quote:6. Negotiation with North Korea was a failure of the Clinton Administration. Whoops, he's negotiated with North Korea and continues to, currently offering them incentives to disarm.The Clinton/Carter negotiations were a sham. They were duped by the North Koreans with sweet-talk in exchange for economic aid as a payoff for not developing a nuclear program. So, they double-crossed Clinton/Carter and pursued their program anyway. Now knowing that North Korea has a developed nuclear program despite the Clinton/Carter assurances to the contrary, what is Bush supposed to do? quote:8. Said he would not raid the SS trust fund. Immediately raided it.There is no such thing as a social security trust fund. There never has been one. If we had one, why would Al Gore need a lockbox to store it in? quote:My finall observation, or thought is...I hve been listening to various arguments between Republicans and Democrats...why is it that a Republican will tell a Dem that they are stupid and have "no idea what you are talking about" yet a Democrat will continue to make the point without being outwardly rude?Just curious... what channel do you watch on TV?

quote:The issue is flip flopping right? I just want to be clear on that. So my response is two fold. First I must say that I think that Kerry's manipulation of his own words is disgraceful and shows a weak will. People do change their minds. Yes, they do, but on every topic that's questioned, sometimes back and forth, multiple times? quote:1. Opposed the 9/11 commission. Now acts as if it was all his idea.Even the Pearl Harbor Commission waited until WWII was over before reviewing what happened. If Bush was opposed to the 9/11 Commission, it was because of the leaked Senate Intelligence Committee memo from last year that told of a Democrat plan to use commissions and studies to "pull the Republicans along" until they could "pull the trigger" in 2004. Don't you remember that memo, written at the request of Vice-Chairman Jay Rockefeller? Can you blame Bush for not wanting to walk into a known Democrat trap? quote:3. Opposed making gay marriage a matter for the Federal government (go back to the debates). Proclaimed that it was a matter for the states to decide. Now he supports a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BAN IT.I'd say that his hand was forced by a few activist judges in Massachusetts, and a rogue mayor in San Francisco. I don't recall the President changing his mind on this until other elected officials started to blatently flout the law and disregard their own state constitutions and/or ballot propositions. quote:4. Said that American Troops should not be used for the purposes of nation building. Now it is the ONLY REASON we went to Iraq.I remember when Bush said that in the third debate against Al Gore (the townhall format). However, 9/11 happened, which was a big factor in this. For both Afghanistan and Iraq, when we bomb out the current regime, we have to replace it with another one that can keep the millions of people from starving to death. You can debate the merits of going into Iraq, but the fact still remains that we had to do something for the people once the overthrow was complete. quote:6. Negotiation with North Korea was a failure of the Clinton Administration. Whoops, he's negotiated with North Korea and continues to, currently offering them incentives to disarm.The Clinton/Carter negotiations were a sham. They were duped by the North Koreans with sweet-talk in exchange for economic aid as a payoff for not developing a nuclear program. So, they double-crossed Clinton/Carter and pursued their program anyway. Now knowing that North Korea has a developed nuclear program despite the Clinton/Carter assurances to the contrary, what is Bush supposed to do? quote:8. Said he would not raid the SS trust fund. Immediately raided it.There is no such thing as a social security trust fund. There never has been one. If we had one, why would Al Gore need a lockbox to store it in? quote:My finall observation, or thought is...I hve been listening to various arguments between Republicans and Democrats...why is it that a Republican will tell a Dem that they are stupid and have "no idea what you are talking about" yet a Democrat will continue to make the point without being outwardly rude?Just curious... what channel do you watch on TV?

quote:Why don't you look up how many jobs the Heinz company has sent overseas! Even though I am not a fan of offshoring jobs, I'm not sure that I would put Heinz in that category. From what I understand (and I did not research this), the Heinz overseas headcount is due to condiment plants being located in the countries where the food is grown, processed, and sold. I don't think that we ship tomatoes overseas, turn them into ketchup in Asia, and then send them back to the USA. I could be wrong on this.

quote:Why don't you look up how many jobs the Heinz company has sent overseas! Even though I am not a fan of offshoring jobs, I'm not sure that I would put Heinz in that category. From what I understand (and I did not research this), the Heinz overseas headcount is due to condiment plants being located in the countries where the food is grown, processed, and sold. I don't think that we ship tomatoes overseas, turn them into ketchup in Asia, and then send them back to the USA. I could be wrong on this.

quote:Your war hero president is afraid of a bunch of MLK era septagenerians because they disgree with his policies and his handlers cant hold up flash cards with all the answers.No, it's not because they disagree with his policies, it's because they call him "Taliban-wing" and Nazi. They could still disagree with his policies within the framework of civil discourse. Bush just chose to go to other African-American venues.

quote:Your war hero president is afraid of a bunch of MLK era septagenerians because they disgree with his policies and his handlers cant hold up flash cards with all the answers.No, it's not because they disagree with his policies, it's because they call him "Taliban-wing" and Nazi. They could still disagree with his policies within the framework of civil discourse. Bush just chose to go to other African-American venues.

quote: While your at it maybe you guys can convince the millions of unemployed in this country they actually still have a job.That is the classic Leftist dodge. Instead of addressing the subject at hand, change the subject entirely. While we're at it, can't we just once address the points of this topic only?

quote: While your at it maybe you guys can convince the millions of unemployed in this country they actually still have a job.That is the classic Leftist dodge. Instead of addressing the subject at hand, change the subject entirely. While we're at it, can't we just once address the points of this topic only?

Kalshion: My mother is one of those "shrub-haters" who viscerally despises Bush for no identifiable reason. When I point out things like the Senate Judiciary Committee leaked memos about judges, or the Senate Intelligence Committee leaked memo about undermining Bush with secrets, all written by Democrats, she replies with the generic "everybody does it," and she truly believes that the Republicans are worse but are so much better at it that they don't get caught like the Democrats keep doing. I keep telling her that the Republicans don't do those things, and the reason that she keeps hearing reports that the Democrats do this or that is that it's only the Democrats who are stooping to those levels. That's usually when she asks me if I called my brother and sister lately. However, recently, when I told her about the New York City protest plot, she said "I know... I know...," so I must be having an affect on her.

Have you heard the reports that activist demonstrators (is that redundant?) had posted on websites to do the following: go to skeet shooting ranges or firing ranges and spend an hour or two shooting guns, then don't wash the powder off, go on the subways into Manhattan, try to find a patrol with a bomb-sniffing dog, walk up to the dog and try to get it to alert, petting it if necessary. When the police question you, play dumb for as long as you can in the hopes that they have to call in additional forces and maybe even shut down the subway system. This is all in an attempt to disrupt the Republican convention, yet it has the potential to put the entire city at risk if they are trying to divert the security forces away from real threats in order to embarrass Bush.

It happens all the time with politicians. The media routinely clean up mistakes in grammar [print media, in this case], tense, and obvious misused words. They understand the rigors of the campaign trail and the exhaustion that comes from many appearances in a single day. Unless it is obvious that what was said is what the speaker meant to say, the media go with what was intended to be said. It's when they don't clean it up that the bias creeps in. Along the lines of articulation, let me leave you all with this thought. In some ways, what Bush has is a speech impediment. He can't always grasp the word that he wants, on demand, in an impromptu setting. My brother is like that; he gets wordy when a simpler word is available, he can ramble on because of poor sentence structure. But his (and Bush's) written speech is impeccable. If Bush were a stutterer, you wouldn't call him a dummy, would you? If you believe, as I do, that this is a mild speech impediment like stuttering, then why would you call him a dummy for this?

I know, but the Democrat smear machine takes no prisoners. Medals of Honor don't mean anything if the recipient attacks a Democrat. I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude on the effectiveness of this ad. They circled the wagon over Berger's theft of documents this year; they'll certainly do it over accusations against Kerry from 30 years ago. They are desperate to win.

I know, but the Democrat smear machine takes no prisoners. Medals of Honor don't mean anything if the recipient attacks a Democrat. I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude on the effectiveness of this ad. They circled the wagon over Berger's theft of documents this year; they'll certainly do it over accusations against Kerry from 30 years ago. They are desperate to win.

This ad may backfire because it is so harsh. The media will scoff at the Bush team's claim that they didn't authorize the ad and had nothing to do with it (those wascally 527's), totally opposite of the way that that they accepted the Democrats' claim that the Moveon contest ad showing Bush morphing into Hitler was not authorized by any candidate. In fact, they tried to blame the Republicans for making a big deal of the ad on the MoveOn site. This one is going to reverberate for a while. I'm afraid that it will allow Kerry to play the victim in an attempt to soften future Bush attack ads, knowing that negative ads are coming on Kerry's term as Dukakis' Lt. Governor, and his two decades in the Senate.

This ad may backfire because it is so harsh. The media will scoff at the Bush team's claim that they didn't authorize the ad and had nothing to do with it (those wascally 527's), totally opposite of the way that that they accepted the Democrats' claim that the Moveon contest ad showing Bush morphing into Hitler was not authorized by any candidate. In fact, they tried to blame the Republicans for making a big deal of the ad on the MoveOn site. This one is going to reverberate for a while. I'm afraid that it will allow Kerry to play the victim in an attempt to soften future Bush attack ads, knowing that negative ads are coming on Kerry's term as Dukakis' Lt. Governor, and his two decades in the Senate.

Of what he sponsored, how many were signed into law? Even Dingle and Norwood got their names on bills.

Of what he sponsored, how many were signed into law? Even Dingle and Norwood got their names on bills.