Scratch two Dem candidates off the list
 

Democrat failure #1: Dick Gephardt.

As if there weren't already <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3571">enough good reasons</a> to remove Mr. Gephardt from serious Presidential consideration, Dick outdid himself yesterday.

The School Readiness Act of 2003 had its House vote yesterday. This bill hammers a large wooden stake into the future of the Head Start program.

The bill passed, 217-216. There were two non-voters.

<a href="http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=444">Guess who one of them was?</a>

If you can't show up to do your goddamn job now, Dick, don't ask me to recommend you for a promotion next year.

Democratic failure #2: Joe Lieberman.

Okay, most of us have known that Lieberman is actually a Republican for years. But it's always entertaining when he comes right out and <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92771,00.html">declares it</a>:

<i>"The anti-tax-cut, soft-on-defense, big-spending Democrats will take the Democratic Party to the edge and maybe over," Lieberman told Fox News.</i>

Dear Holy Joe: Here's a free tip. You are (nominally, at least) a prominent Democrat. If you really think that reciting your opponents' own talking points, attacking your own party's members and principles and endorsing much of Dubya's platform is a good idea, why don't you pull a Jeffords, change the letter after your name to an "R" and get the fucking suspense over with?

Also, please feel free to consume feces and cease to metabolize.

Lieberman is the candidate who can actually win, is all -- but if the election is already a guaranteed loss, might as well pull a Goldwater (not my concept, Vodkapundit's) and run Dean.

A recent Gephardt speech tried to have it both ways on Iraq, which he can't really do because he voted for it in Congress. He brought up the "16 words", which he can't really do because he voted for it two months before those words were spoken. He wants a big powerful military, which he can't really do because he's already spending big money in his candidacy. This is mediocrity in action. I will not vote for a guy who decides foreign policy on the flip of a coin.

With all due respect, no way in hell. Lieberman was an unmitigated disaster as a Veep candidate. His prayer eruptions on the campaign trail turned off significant chunks of the Democratic base, and his censor-America-for-the-children campaigns reminded many of why they _used to_ loathe the Gores. He had a pathetic debate against Cheney. When Gore stepped back from Lieberman's vote-for-the-Republicans-who-are-running-as-Democrats rhetoric and started veering in a more populist direction, his poll numbers started improving immediately.

Tom Eagleton was a better Veep choice.

Just as many in the Democratic "center" are prepared to mount an anyone-but-Dean primary campaign, lots of progressives are looking at the chaos Bush & Co. have inflicted and are STILL saying "I'll vote for any Democrat BUT Lieberman." That damage is done. Dean may or may not end up being viable, but Lieberman will drop out after a handful of primaries.

Heh. You're finding out what I've known for many years now: most Democrat politicians are pathetic sacks of shit.

That's why Dean is interesting; he looks less sack o' shit-like.

Remove the word "Democrat" from your statement and I've known that all along.

The deal with Dean is that he has a few things coming together at once. As a non-Congresscritter, he has that "outsider" vibe that's often treasured. He was openly anti-war when many of his primary opponents were voting to give Bush the go-ahead (a vote he didn't have to take part in, obviously). He's far and away the leader in using the Internet as a communication tool; that won't win him the election by itself, but it sure doesn't hurt, and it's given him a massive boost in both money and volunteers in these early stages. He's mobilizing a lot of Dems, Nader defectors and usually-stay-at-homes through his attitude as much as anything else, while his actual issue stances aren't nearly as liberal as some make them out to be.

One thing that moved him up in my esteem is that he was the first prominent politician to step up and say "Senator Santorum, you're full of shit" in so many words when the man-on-dog interview came out. Another one of those things that most of us knew all along, but few in power would say aloud...

Dean, Kerry, and perhaps Edwards have a shot at dethroning Bush, though much will depend on what Bush does between now and then (i.e. how bad Iraq looks, how the economy's doing). Lieberman has no chance. He has zero personality, he'd make progressives stay home in droves, and his platform's not far off of pointing to Bush and saying "I'm just like him, but vote for me." Gephardt will do fine in Iowa, then will drop like a rock.

His prayer eruptions on the campaign trail turned off significant chunks of the Democratic base,

...which is exactly how you get elected in general elections, since the vast majority of voters are way outside that particular group.

Nah, I won't follow you there. A significant percentage of HIS OWN PARTY won't vote for him, and I'm not talking about just the far left fringe. I won't accept the notion that he'll pull more votes from the Republicans and "swing voters" than he'll lose among the Democrats, especially when he spends more time agreeing with Bush and the Republicans than arguing against them. He didn't help Gore reach 50% in 2000; he dragged Gore _down_ to 50%, to where the mirth and merriment of Florida could kick in.

This isn't a Rizzo kind of guy, where 45% turned out to vote for him and 45% turned out to vote against him no matter who the opponent was. Lieberman has the personal magnetism and charisma of a dishrag. Exactly what does he bring to the table that will inspire the typical Republican-leaning swing voter to say "Hey, he's something DIFFERENT, I should vote for him" in any numbers?

When a wanna-be runs against the real deal, the real deal usually wins. If he can find a way to distinguish himself FROM Bush, he may have a chance; if he continues to tout how much he and Bush think alike, he's toast on a stick.

OK. But if you think you hate Bush now, wait'll you see what kind of Bush you get after a 60-40 election and coat-tails guaranteeing 2-3 votes of wiggle room in the Senate.

All right, then. If you were a campaign manager, how would _you_ go about getting Democrats to come out and vote?

(Note that I didn't say "getting Republicans to vote for Democrats." I strongly believe that the former task is more important than the latter.)

You get a Democrat that isn't afraid to speak out. Someone that will say, "You know what? This shit is just crazy right now...we have to chill out a bit." Or..."You know, I realize that things have been nuts for 2 years now, but I think I can do better than what we have now...and here's how I want to try and do it."

Dean seems like he wants to do this, but hasn't quite done it yet. I just want to see someone take a stand and not be afraid of taking on Bush and the GOP.

Of course, getting rid of McAuliffe could do the Dems wonders.

BTW, Wesley Clark is still out there, pondering. From his interview with Diane Rehm on NPR this week, he seems like he really wants to pull the trigger on this. He could be what the Dems really need...or he could inspire the other candidates to do better.

I *was* a campaign manager, and I have back issues of Campaigns and Elections. Not that this qualifies me or anything... my record as a manager is 0-2.

I believe the simplest, proven, effective way to get Democrats OR Republicans out to vote is to call them on election day and ask them to.

Most people do not operate the way you do. They would like to have opinions and principles and stuff, and CARE and stuff, but it's too hard and there is too much more to be interested in.

Now you may really vote hard, you may really press that button down hard or pull that lever until it almost falls off, but that still only counts as one vote. Dean's "Bush lied!" gambit excites 5% of the population to a frenzy -- the people who operate by principle, share his biases, and care about politics. Now that he's gotten ALL of those people and is still not a front-runner, what next?

Look at it from my old perspective. I've had this very same debate many times with Libertarian Party True Believers. I wanted to run somewhat populist candidates with moderate views, and teach them how to appeal to the common person, in order to build a big-tent party. Most everyone else felt it would be much more effective to run hardline 100% highly-principled philosophers who believe in things like shutting down the public schools.

I consistently lost that debate, and not only are there precious few elected LPers, but the party has now reduced itself through this purification to a small number of committed, highly-principled people like Radar who will never, ever win one election, and shouldn't anyway.

Leave the purists to the Green Party, the big parties are for politics.

Let's not go calling the Green Party purists now...their own politics are far from pure, IMO.

I understand where you're coming from UT, and the lack of principles, caring, etc. is what is so scary right now. Everything is so knee-jerk, so automated...moreso than normal. Our government right now doesn't feel like Big Brother to me...it feels like my father.

UT, you realize you're going to be my campaign manager when I run for office, right?

Does Dean have a brother named Billy, that likes beer, a lot?:confused:

This would be a good new tagline for you UT... "not qualified or anything" :)

Tony, I hear what you're saying. I am under no illusions that the American populace will rise as one, sweep Dean to a 48-2 electoral college victory, and consign Dubya to street-sweeping duties for the next thirty years.

About half the people who COULD vote in America simply won't. Ever.

Another 40% vote at least once in a while, but do it without thinking -- they either pull the big Dem lever or the big Rep lever and go home happy that they've done their civic duty.

The remaining 10% -- call it 3% hardcore leftists, 3% dedicated Libertarians, 4% Bible-thumping theocrats -- are the ones spewing zeal and fury and get-out-the-vote perseverance, but (ironically) are often the ones supporting Quixotic candidacies that have no chance of winning over the rank-and-file.

The thing about Dean is that while he's certainly exciting most of the leftist elitists, he's not so far to the left that he can't appeal to the middle group as well. He's got an A rating from the NRA, supports the death penalty, supports a balanced budget and cutting government spending, and is not averse to tax cuts on a reasonable scale. This isn't Moonbeam Brown or Ralph Nader we're talking about here; the DLC may be blasting him now, but they were singing his praises not too long ago. He has a name-recognition hurdle to overcome, but it's early yet.

Lieberman, on the other hand, can write off almost all of the hardcore leftists on day one, and doesn't really stand much of a chance of drawing votes from the Republican camp, either. If given a choice between Republican-lite and Republican, why will Republicans vote for the watered-down variety, who's promising essentially the same things as the full-blown conservative?

How do you get the once-in-a-whilers to come out and vote? One of two ways: either convince them that there's a direct benefit if their candidate gets in (he'll vote for something that affects them, be it a tax cut, something being banned, something being un-banned, or glittering generalities like "an end to the war" or "a stronger economy" or "more jobs"), or convince them that the other guy will directly and negatively affect them if HE gets in (spreading FUD, in other words).

Lieberman can do neither, as long as he's reciting Republican talking points. He's not providing any compelling differences between himself and Bush, nor is he attacking Bush effectively. Dean has the advantage of looking and sounding different. Kerry, Edwards, Wesley Clark (if he ends up deciding to throw his hat in the ring after all) and others could do the same thing, without leaning so far to the left as to be easy targets for the smear machines.

SOMEBODY has to be the Democratic candidate next year. Running Lieberman is as good as declaring "We have no ideas, so we're borrowing theirs."

Vsp, you are apparently pulling those numbers straight out of your ass. Most of my friends and I don't fall into any of those categories.

v-man, you're still thinking like yourself and not like voters.

The "oh wow" moment for me happened during an LP seminar on political debates and how to win them. The speaker was one of the primo LPers, one of the most well-respected on the lecture circuit. He was explaining how to "win" the debate: as in, how to convince people you're right.

In attendance was a guy I knew who had some real-world experience running Republican campaigns. I kept an eye on him. A third of the way through the seminar, he walked out in disgust.

I followed him and asked him what was up. He explained that the speaker didn't have a clue. Following the speakers' advice, he explained, you might convince the crowd that you're Very Smart, and maybe even Right. But that's not your objective! Your objective is to convince them to vote for you, which is a very different thing.

F'rinstance, issues are what YOU care about, but Joe and Josephine Voter only care about a third as hard as you do. Most candidates' stances are a blur; if they can remember one specific issue, it's because the candidate hit it over and over and over again (witness Gore's "lockbox") or because they are generally single-issue. Why they vote the way they do is usually not simply matching preferences to issues. Many people won't consider issues one bit and will only consider whether the candidate appears to be trustworthy (or honest or presidential or Italian or patriotic or family-oriented or gay or etc.)

Why did Clinton beat Dole in 1996? Many think it's because Clinton stole the issue of welfare reform, which would put him on the opposite side of 80% of his party. But it's just as likely because, to most people, Clinton came across as a sincere, caring guy while Dole came across as a mean, bitter old man.

Hearing stories about candidates meeting voters further convinced me of all this. When you ask the average person, what problem bothers you the most? What needs fixing? S/he's just as likely to complain about the neighbor's dog endlessly barking as the economy.

How do you get that person to care about your candidate? Not only do you have to convince them that you have a candidate that differs, but you have to convince them that voting is a meaningful process that will actually make a difference in their lives if they participate.

I gotta close this now, because I gotta go, and you could just assume the other ten paragraphs I was going to write...

I'd say that it's the uneducated themselves who have lost their perspective. When learning about and voting for the people who will control one's life becomes so unimportant to half the country, I'd say that's a pretty clear indication of a mass loss of perspective.

UT isn't saying that trying to educate the voters is useless or silly. He's saying that it has nothing to do with trying to win elections. Have you ever actually worked for any campaigns? Although my experience in this regard isn't as extensive as his, I fully agree with that position.

Except that's exactly what I thought _I_ said. I've known plenty of Joe and Josephines who (when and if they DO vote) don't think about issues; they tend to vote either Democratic or Republican because, well, they've always voted either Democratic or Republican.

If I call a random phone number and get a typical American on the line, proceeding to try to sell him on my candidate's virtues, I agree that the person probably won't listen if I ramble on about issue X or issue Y. It'll all come down to one basic question:

"What's in it for me?"

I'm unclear as to how someone like Lieberman has a clear advantage in answering that over the other Dem candidates.

Again, agreed. Now, how does a lump like Lieberman do either of those things?

People really hate being "educated". This was another point from my R acquaintance at the debates seminar. What would you think of someone pointing out how dumb you are and/or how you don't have the right priorities? It's just not a good starting point for asking for someone's vote.

OK, Lieberman is a lump and sounds too much like the guy from "Alf", I admit it. I think he will differentiate himself when some of the current issues have played out.

It's probably a political gambit, a flyer, just like Dean's "Bush Lied!" -- if WMDs are found Lieberman goes to #1 and stays, because most of the rest of the lot look not only stupid but dangerous and unpoised and unpresidential.

Saw 30 seconds of Lieberman today, and it occurred to me that his job right now is to differentiate himself from the other D candidates -- which he has now done. His job to differentiate himself from the R candidate will be after the primaries.

And the economy is a larger point than the war. If the economy recovers, all the candidates who are running hard against the tax cut are doomed, because it'll look like the tax cut was responsible. Lieberman may be plainly betting that WMDs are found and the economy looks stronger by the end of the year. That's Lieberman's flyer.

And since I don't foresee either one happening, I think my money is safe. ;)

Hillary has been pretty coy through this whole thing. She has been very careful to position herself much like Lieberman whose butt she would kick in a Dem primary. What she and some in the party don't get is that she is unelectable without a Bull Moose candidate pulling exclusively from the right.

More information:

Zogby Poll

Gephardt 12%
Lieberman 12%
Dean 12%
Kerry 9%

The big news in this is the changes since the last quarter: Lieberman 8% down, Dean 8% up.

In the middle of the page is another interesting table: Favorable/Unfavorable/Unfamiliar. It finds that 61% are still unfamiliar with Dean (compare 18% unfamiliar with Lieberman), down from 75% in last quarter. Six months until New Hampshire.

Go Dean Go!

Having paid not a whit of attention to Hillary since she relocated to NY, I was surprised to have lunch with some NYC republicans who absolutely despise WJClinton, but are pleased with Hillary as their senator. They say most of their friends around the state feel the same way. These are people who wouldn't in a million years vote for Lieberman because he's A) a Democrat; B) too old, and; C) Jewish.

I wouldn't vote for Lieberman in a million years because A) his stance on censorship.

I'm not going to moan about it, but... just like Tipper Gore, this man is a fuckhole.

Yeah, that's all.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Lieberman's image. He is a politician. He is very powerful. He has been, is, and will be again in the spotlight of the press.
All of which makes getting elected to the Presidency extremely difficult.
Why? People don't see the 'Honest Joe' that they want for a Prez (see GB and WJC). They see 'Slick Joey,' the hustler from around the block that can get what you need, without any questions asked. He is a part of the machine that makes the world run, but a you don't necessarily want a cog in control of the works; they're too slimy.

And I whole-heartedly second Dave's motion on fuck-hole-itude-ness.

Does anyone have any thoughts on pairing folks up for Veep this time around?

The mere fact that Lieberman is Jewish makes him unelectable as president, IMO. Could you imagine the uproar that would have occurred if Gore had become president and Lieberman had to ascend to the presidency for whatever reason?

Nothing against Jews, of course. But it took over 170 years to elect a Catholic president...our nation doesn't seem ready yet for a Jewish/female/minority president.

Sorry v, the quarterly GDP growth number reported today was 2.4% annual. This is a pretty good number and certainly not recession.

Unemployment for July comes out tomorrow; unemployment is the last thing to recover, but it's considered a "lagging indicator", basically because employers turn on hiring late in a recovery when they're sure things are going well.

And now it's tomorrow and unemployment is reported to be down.

Care to make a wager on WMDs? Yesterday the guy who runs the program hunting for them said that they now have proof of weapons programs, as well as proof of programs to deceive the UN weapons inspectors. (Those who have always wanted to discredit Powell's UN speech... you lose again.)

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who is normally more sensible about such things, insisted harshly that a program is different from actual weapons.

From a political point of view, this is really utterly stupid. But from the point of view of reality, where politics doesn't matter as much, this is really utterly mind-bogglingly stupid.

Isn't he John now?

Hey finger waggler, as someone who has express doubt, mistrust, and anger, I'll admit I'm critical of Bush. His various courses of action have disturbed me, not because I'm rooting for more catastrophe, I want things to get better. I mean, really long term better- Thus the critical attention, healthy skepticism and caution. And I applaud those willing to voice their doubts and call the administrators on what they say and what they do. Thats the only way I think we'd learn anything.

I hope they DO find something to help build a stronger case for the preemptive strike that is now so firmly on the books. I want the peaceful rebuilding of Iraq. I want the job loss to stop. I want to control spending, protect human rights, and I want to see the balance of government work. I want the queasy doubt to go away.

John might be his actual name, but he goes by Jay.

If I'm waggling, it's just because I want the Ds to run their best politically-viable candidate. I think the country is far better served by a 51-49 outcome than a 60-40 outcome, no matter which side wins. I understand the Dean phenomenon, but I think he's a 60-40 outcome a la McGovern.

Personally I think right now my vote would go Lieberman first, then Bush, then Edwards, then Kerry, then Dean, then the pack. It is thrilling to be an independent swing voter. I admit my biases here so that y'all can judge what I say based on it.

D, I understand the reluctance wrt Lieberman and censorship completely, it's just that I think he'd be mostly harmless in that regard. All the candidates have something wrong with them.

Why do you think the country would be far better served by a 51-49 outcome?
I think the Ds should run their best candidate, the one who best represents the concerns of the people. I know. Thinking like a loser, but a loser that can get or keep some issues on the table.

Nat Hentoff wants this issue on the table. Is there a candidate will put it there?

Judge Diane Motz's dissenting opinion:
For more than a year, a United States citizen, Yaser Esam Hamdi, has been labeled an enemy combatant and held in solitary confinement in a Norfolk, Virginia, naval brig. He has not been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. The Executive [the president] will not state when, if ever, he will be released. Nor has the Executive allowed Hamdi to appear in court, consult with counsel, or communicate in any way with the outside world.

I fear that [this court] may also have opened the door to the indefinite detention, without access to a lawyer or the courts, of any American citizen, even one captured on American soil, who the Executive designates an 'enemy combatant,' as long as the Executive asserts that the area in which the citizen was detained was an 'active combat zone,' and the detainee, deprived of access to the courts and counsel, cannot dispute this fact.

Hamdi was picked up in Afghanistan but Nat's point is that defining a war zone in a war on terror is a very flexible thing.

You can call me JaySupposedly, he's moving toward John as part of a VP bid.

Well again it's all personal bias. The thing I fear most is that Bush wins 60-40 because of national security concerns (because the voters find the D's foreign policy anti-American), and then takes that to mean he has a mandate to implement the conservative side of the culture war.

I think that, in a 50-50 world, Junior nominates another David Souter to the Supreme Court. That's what Bush Senior did. But in a 60-40 world, he has less fear of political repercussions and nominates someone Pat Robertson approves of.

Eeww. I see your concern.
Still, I'd love to see a great leader on all war fronts, one to inspire progress.
(Boy!, I am idealistic, eh? Maybe its the whole Seabiscuit thing... I confess I liked and still like Jimmy Carter.)

Did I not call it, Griff?

Regarding Hamdi, I'm not sure I get it; if he's charged under US law, wouldn't he'd be charged with treason, and then be put to death?

After this quaint little series of events we like to call due process, like talking to a lawyer, getting a trial ...that kind of stuff.

Do you think the military would be unable to make its case to any jury of Americans or any judge in an American court?

They probably could show intent, unfortunately, they have not had the opportunity to prove their case.

This is important beyond Hamdi's particular case. If, as Hentoff believes, Ashcroft would define American soil as a war zone anybody labeled as an enemy combatant could be held indefinitely with no legal recourse.

We've faced down graver threats than these and yes we have suspended habeas corpus before, however, the suspension was found unconstitutional after the war. The War on Terror can be continued forever. There is no enemy capital to overrun. Our very act of fighting it will create new pockets of terrorists so the war continues as long as we care to fight it and the illegitamit power seized by the Bush administration stays in place.

That is a classic.:thumb:

They really hate it when we stop them from killing us, so we should just let them, and afterwards we can argue about it in court. I see.

No no. Even bad men deserve proof. If not then, all is lost.

No disrespect intended at all Sheppsie, but I have to ask this: why are the two people that seem hell-bent on curtailing our civil liberties at the top of your list?

He can nominate whoever he wants, but it still has to be approved. And if the Senate stays as narrowly divided as it is, Bush won't have any choice but to nominate a more moderate candidate.

Syc, I think it's a more complicated matter than it looks. I think incompetent presidencies result in much greater loss of civil rights just due to uncertainty. I think civil rights are what you lose when the people aren't watching, and I think they're watching right now, although they always have blind spots. And I think there are times in civilizations when people desperately want to give up their civil rights, and I think a poorly-run War on Terror would lead to such times.

Also, there's a strange factor at work with the presidency. Sometimes you have to vote for the exact opposite of what you want. Only a president from the south, LBJ, could enact the civil rights acts of his day. Only Nixon could go to China. Only Bush Sr could sign the Clean Air Act. Only Clinton could enact welfare reform and NAFTA.

Tob, good point... IIRC the Senate has only recently decided that it's politically acceptable to strongly object to such appointees. Can't tell whether it's a good thing to make the whole thing more political...

Does Bush really care about that though?

Look at the problem he is having getting Federal judges approved. He hasn't yanked any of the nominations yet that I've seen...and he just nominated another (from what I've read) conservative.

This president comes across as very uncompromising, which is not a good thing in situations like this.

Actually it is only a few judges he is having problems with. Something like tens of nominations are going through with little or no problem. But Bush nominated at least three so extreme that he is having a problem rarely seen with judge nominatons in a Congress even dominated by his own party.

It is not just the Democrats that are having a problem with these few nominations. Many Republicans are also finding these nominations that repugnant.

Agreed.

I see many people walking around blind right now, oblivious to the loss of civil rights in recent times. Sure, there are people like us who bring it up...but what do we and our kind represent? Like 1% of the population, if that? (I'm sure it's more, but nowhere near as high as it probably should be.)

As I mentioned above, there seem to be a lot of oblivious folks out there right now. As I see it, the aftermath of 9/11 showed what a bunch of yes men Americans can be. This certainly isn't the first time it's happened, but one of the few times I've seen it during my short lifetime.

Would you say the War on Terror is well-run?

I don't think those are really examples of opposites. LBJ had to respond to social concern...not to mention he became president by accident (or conspiracy, depending on how you view the JFK assassination). Nixon apparently had his eyes on China before he even became president. Bush had to work with a Democratic Congress, and Clinton with a Republican one.

If we went by your examples, Lieberman would then curb attempts at censorship if elected. Now, if Congress stays Republican in 2004, and then he's voted in, do you really think that he's going to curb his censorship campaign? The GOP would probably love him for the concept.

I think this has come up here before, but I think the perfect president for 2004 would be a social liberal, fiscal conservative.

With the two nominees named last week, that now makes 7 that are looked upon as "dangerous." And there should be some concern, especially over those nominated to the DC Appeals Court. All 7 seem to be staunch conservatives, and there has been talk of changing the rules of the filibuster in the Senate to "speed up" the nomination process.

Wait until the budget talks start heating up...

Oblivious to today's loss of civil rights: feh, I'd say they have a sense of proportion. What we have happening now is damn near nothing compared to what it could be. Roving wiretaps? Visa overstays treated harshly? T'is but a scratch; there are millions in jail just for using plants, too many corrupt cops, etc. which are worse problems that have been with us before, and still...

I dunno if Lieberman would not take up censorship. You never know because the R opposition might find it a bad tactic to have Lieberman get the credit for their issues. In 1995 the Rs gave Clinton welfare reform because it was just too big of an issue for them to claim disinterest and possibly too much in the country's interest to pass up. My guess is that a lot of them like to use censorship as an issue to stir up their fundraising base, but really would like to pass stuff that looks like something big but turns out to be totally meaningless.

Remember the "V-chip"? It had both sides screaming bloody murder, but here we are about 10 years later and absolutely nothing has actually changed. As long as the people do not want censorship in their lives, they will not have it. My worry is for when they WANT it, because then they WILL GET it... in droves.

Is the War on Terror well run: that answer has to be "incomplete", because we won't know for a long time whether what has happened so far will be effective in the long run. And there's a lot we can't see, because half the war is fought in intelligence work.

But by accounts, and with my own bias, I feel the Offense gets an A- so far and the Defense gets a D. But I guess the only relevant question is, was there another major attack on our shores or interests? and so far the answer is no. Ridge alleged in one press conference that Homeland Security has actually prevented further attacks, but without the details we can't have yet, we just don't know.

I keep hearing hints of *possible* plots uncovered. But these guys are so secretive and slippery, I have the feeling that the powers that be pounce and interrogate, rather than relying on surveillance to see what's going to happen. Nobody wants to be the one that even suspected and failed to prevent an attack.

Really?

Dude refers to the Bill of Rights as "legal technicalities"? Not what I'm wanting to hear.

Hmmm...subverting the legal process to achieve a desired result...man, that sounds awfully familiar.

I would have though by now we all would have seen where the anti-terrorism campaign had a problem. Investigators in AZ, MN, and IL all were on the trail of 11 Sept terrorists - and all were taken off the trail by FBI management. FBI that ran a crime laboratory so pathetic that data was even being invented rather than analyzed. FBI so pathetic that even their own spy master was a spy. FBI so anti-American as to tell - no ... yell at - agents in IL that they would not open a criminal investigation.

We never needed all these liberties restricted. We, even here in the Cellar, participate in the problem. News reporters would routinely demonstrate how pathetic airport security was. How did Congress respond? They passed a law making it illegal for reporters to do such stories. Where in the Cellar is outrage over this incompentant Congressional action?

They need more power such as the Patriot Act and they need more bureaucracy such as Fatherland security only because they have a classic top management problem. Rather than fix the problem, they spend more money and make more bureaucracy - like a good MBA is taught to do.

We have a NASA who has the same, exact management problem that murdered seven Challenger accidents. The Columbia investigation board is so depressed about the effectiveness of their report that, as quoted now in today's CNN.com, one Noble Prize winner, a student of Feynman, now says they don't believe the murder of seven Columbia astronauts will change things. That is why they keep leaking details of their report, a little bit at a time, so that even Daily News readers and Action News viewers will hear why those astronauts werel killed.

85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. That is the problem in NASA. That was long clearly the problem in the FBI and other national security organizations. And the same incompetant management, instead, wants more power to even monitor what books you buy from Amazon and take out of your library? Where has anyone been addressing the real threat to homeland security - our government leaders who don't first blame themselves.

But then those same government leaders can outrightly lie about WMD, they can advocate the invasion of another sovereign nation without any smoking gun. Yet so many even in the Cellar support such incompetant and dangerous leaders.

Lets take the source of the problem one more step. The Catholic Church has recently ordered all Catholic politicians to vote according to Church doctrine. Hoo-hum say the Cellar dwellars. Not one word posted here about this radical departure in Church doctrine and their newly strengthen policy of promoting hate.

This same Church would refused to provide the NY Times with any information to cover up their own corrupt management. NY Times then discovered sexual child molestation in every dioceses. And that was just what the NY Times could find in less than one week. Recently one church was identified with over 1000 cases of sexual molestation - further crimes against children covered up.

This is the same Church that would tell you how to vote. The same church that outrightly advocates hate against gays as was the norm in 1950s deep south against blacks! Where is the outright protestation against an institution so widely corrupted, that molests children, protect those molesters, outright lie about it, promote hate and violence against those whose sexual life they don't approve of (an institution that forces their own employees to masterbate and demeans them for same).

Who here has the balls to stand up for the Catholic Church that is that corrupt, demented, and and enemy of its own followers. But even harher, who will stand up and call the Church the corrupt organization that it really is.

I fear we all still spend too much time reading the Daily News, watching the bimbo on Action News, or simply make decisions only upon our personal emotions - facts be damned.

Cited were blunt examples how many Cellar dwellers seem to be so sure that Saddam was ready to launch weapons of mass destruction against mainland US in 45 minutes, that don't even protest when reporters are banned from exposing no airport security, that don't outrightly blame top domestic security management (ie FBI) as the real threat to fatherland security, that even condone, by silence, the outright murder of astronauts, and even endorse tax cuts that are denied to the poor- that are only to enrich the wealthy at the expense of a healthy economy.

We have the government we deserve. Look at the silence in the Cellar as proof. Silence that even approves of the Church telling American political leaders how to vote and that advocated hate against homosexuals and other patriotic Americans.