Dem's Accuse Bush of UFO Coverup

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Dec 18, 2003.

  1. Well, not really. Or maybe I should say not yet. Because leading Dem's have put themselves right out there on the lunatic fringe. We're not talking the usual whacko's like Dennis Kuchinich, Jesse Jackson and minor oddballs like Congressman Jim Moran. We're talking first cut. Leading contender Dr. Howard Dean has openly speculated that President Bush might have beeen tipped off by the Saudi's that 19 of their citizens were planning 9/11. Presumably his theory is that, other than warning all the Jews to stay home, Bush did nothing.

    Zany Congressman Jim McDermott, who was last seen in Baghdad before the war giving encouragement to the human shields, has now surfaced and seriously suggested that the military had Saddam on cold storage or at least knew where to find him for a long time and was just waiting for the right moment to announce his capture. Why not when Bush was in Iraq, Congressman?

    The person who was reputedly the Secretary of State during the Clinton administration, a lady who goes by the name of Madeline Albright, then popped up and opined to the normally low-key Morton Kondracke that she thought it was also likely the administration had the big kahuna, Osama bin Ladin, and was saving him for a pre-election surprise.

    This kind of fascination with "october" surprises is a staple of Democrat conspiracy buffs. It took years for them to get over the idea that Reagan had not arranged an evil bargain with the Iranians to not release the embassay hostages prior to the '80- election between Reagan and the hapless Jimmie Carter. They even theorized that Bush 41 took a secret trip on an SR71 Blackbird to arrange things.

    The danger now is that leading voices of the party are sounding off with these conspiracy theories. Just when they seemed to be getting past their fervent belief that Gore "really" won , they come up with something even more idiotic. Is it any wonder the voters shake their heads in disbelief?
     
  2. It truly is amazing what people will believe (weapons of mass destruction) when they are in denial (weapons of mass destruction) about their party (weapons of mass destruction) and the leader (weapons of mass destruction) of their party.
     
  3. AAA,

    I respect your opinions greatly and all of your posts are very well thought out. However, I want to ask you if you think the current state of the democratic party is actually bad not only for the party platform itself, but also because having a well-balanced two party system is healthy for our country.

    I have had some liberal views in my past, but I have since become more conservative because the democratic party seems to really have no real integrity as of late.

    Why do you suppose this is? What has happened to the democratic party and why isn't there one good democratic candidate?
     
  4. HUH? What is the meaning of this? Was she not the Sec State? Is that not her real name?

    :confused: :confused: :confused:

    Peace,
    :)RS
     
  5. Worst case scenario is the Democratic party imploding and splintering. This would lead to multiple parties splitting the vote on the Democratic side, and possibly splintering of the GOP as well and we move into more of a coalition type of political process like in Britain. But until a 3rd party can consistently get over 10% of the national vote 3rd parties won't amount to much and this scenario seems very unlikely, and splinter groups will likely just weaken the party that is involved.

    And with regards to the conspiracy theories, they abound when a political party is losing - happens on both sides. It is used to deflect the inept-ness of the party/candidates/issues onto some nefarious conspiracy.
     
  6. I think it is important that both major parties be seen as legitimate and broadly representative of the country as a whole. It has been a strength of our system that it really did not matter all that much which party prevailed. The voters knew that essentially the same policies would be followed. Problems tend to arise when people begin to feel it is vitally important that one side or the other be elected. Then you get banana republic-type corruption or violence.

    It does seem to me that the democrats are in danger of forfeiting this legitimacy. The famous USA Today red/blue election map demonstrated the issue graphically. The vast majority of the country voted republican. The democrat strongholds were major urban areas and particularly the east and west coast corridors.

    There is nothing wrong in advocating liberal or progressive policies, but there is a danger when they turn into "us against them" type appeals to envy or resentment. The democrats also have a problem in that they are basically a coalition of liberal interest groups such as unions, abortion rights activists, environmentalists, homosexuals, affirmative action/racial quota advocates and welfare activists. A democrat presidential candidate has to appeal to this very liberal base of party activists while still maintaining his viability with the electorate as a whole.

    Howard Dean has taken the approach of throwing the activists plenty of red meat. Others such as Senator Lieberman and Congressman Gephardt have been more circumspect. The danger is that the party ends up with a candidate who lacks broad appeal and leads the party to a crushing defeat.

    While I agree with you that none of the candidates is very appealing, the republicans have similar problems. Other than president Bush, it is hard to name anyone who would have much national appeal. Perhaps Rudy Guliani or Colin Powell would, but they would have a problem with the conservative republican base.
     
  7. I find it difficult to believe a former Secretary of State would make such remarks. Can you ever imagine Colin Powell doing so?
     
  8. As opposed to that proven fraud... you know... Powell's UN testimony on WMD's prior to invading Iraq?
    Dozens of thousands lives lost, 200 billion plus bill to the taxpayer and counting.
     
  9. giulliani could do it, powell's past is way too dirty. (although daddy bush managed to get elected despite having a shady past, but this was on the coattails of reagan and the dems didn't have a candidate in '88 -- this changed when they got clinton in '92).

    if the dems can find a good candidate they can do it. hillary, gore, or a better ticket like dean+clark. or mcCain once he finally admits the truth that his party has been hijacked by the neocons and is probably beyond salvage.



    party biases aside, the real problem in this country is the 2 party system. it is embarassing.

    whenever you have one extreme (like now with GOP controlling everything) things go straight into the shitter (would be the same way if the dems controlled everything).
     
  10. Why are politics so polarizing, though. Why not just have a decent moderate party that is not hard right or hard left.
     
    #10     Dec 18, 2003