Comments on: Letterman Gets Serious With Clinton

Some Light Moments, But Emphasis In "Late Show" Interview On Iraq And Campaign 2008

[abbe91]

abbe91: You forgot about rushman71.

That was the reason for the "(much)" in "not (much) name calling".

My point is that of course you shouldn''''t agree w/ a candidate on everything. You''''d be a mindless stooge if you do (as evidenced by the Bush defenders). There are unfortunately only two parties in the U.S., and of course you can''''t, and probably shouldn''''t, agree with everything on your party''''s platform. But to be a one-issue voter is simply naive. Might as well hand the victory to the other side.
Posted by incog-nito at 11:36 AM : Aug 31, 2007

I could not agree more. We would be better off with a 3 party system.

For tuckerndfw: I would understand you would vote for Ron Paul, even McCain instead of Clinton. McCain is certainly confused about some things but I think he is "clean" about 911. But Giuliani ...

[themurph2000]

I did not support John Kerry, but I voted for him hoping to defeat George Bush. It''''s called the "lesser of two evils."
Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:30 AM : Aug 31, 2007

That''s fairly good description of what did the Democrats in back in 2004. It''s not a good line of reasoning for casting a vote. The Democrats were hell-bent on getting Bush out. What they failed to do is say why John Kerry should be voted in. Moveon.org never gave out one reason for promoting any particular candidate other than to get the current one out.

In spite of this, Kerry still did OK in the election for being a non-incumbent. The ''04 election was effectively a tie when you consider the party in the White House has the incumbent advantage. (Like the home team in football getting 3.5 in the spread.) I still think he should have challenged the results. But I guess he didn''t want to make a repeat of 2000, even if he had more justification than Gore did.

[incog-nito]

tuckerndfw: Well if you''re going to vote for the "lesser of two evils" then you should obviously vote the less evil party. The nominee does not represent the whole party, as has to work with and is influenced by others in the party. And no, the two existing parties may be not all that great, but they are certainly not the same.

[abbe91]

abbe91: You forgot about rushman71.

That was the reason for the "(much)" in "not (much) name calling".

My point is that of course you shouldn''''t agree w/ a candidate on everything. You''''d be a mindless stooge if you do (as evidenced by the Bush defenders). There are unfortunately only two parties in the U.S., and of course you can''''t, and probably shouldn''''t, agree with everything on your party''''s platform. But to be a one-issue voter is simply naive. Might as well hand the victory to the other side.
Posted by incog-nito at 11:36 AM : Aug 31, 2007

I could not agree more. We would be better off with a 3 party system.

For tuckerndfw: I would understand you would vote for Ron Paul, even McCain instead of Clinton. McCain is certainly confused about some things but I think he is "clean" about 911. But Giuliani ...

[abbe91]

abbe91: You forgot about rushman71.

That was the reason for the "(much)" in "not (much) name calling".

My point is that of course you shouldn''''t agree w/ a candidate on everything. You''''d be a mindless stooge if you do (as evidenced by the Bush defenders). There are unfortunately only two parties in the U.S., and of course you can''''t, and probably shouldn''''t, agree with everything on your party''''s platform. But to be a one-issue voter is simply naive. Might as well hand the victory to the other side.
Posted by incog-nito at 11:36 AM : Aug 31, 2007

I could not agree more. We would be better off with a 3 party system.

[actornaught]

My opinion of reagan couldn''t be lower (until w came along), but then i don''t think he was president, anyway. Nancy probably functioned more as a decider than ronnie. And why the reagan neocons think racking up debt is no big deal is crazy crazy criminal.

My most successful years, professionally, were almost perfectly bookended within the Clinton years. Immediately after w was voted in, our booming plant had international orders cancelled, and they''ve been a ghost ever since.

Shoot me for being the messenger, but if the election were today, Hillary would win. And i don''t see her being such a liability. Hate radio has entirely been working a scam against her for 15 years, so there''s no credibility from there.

If you did away with all the lying politicians in DC, all that''d be left would be tumbleweeds. But when the lies gets tens & hundreds of thousands killed, it''s time to change hands, to say the least.

[abbe91]

"They both appear to have become nothing more than puppets for the "militaryindustrial complex" (Eisenhower''''s term).

One thing has been consistent with both parties since the days of Jimmy Carter and that is catering to their war profiteering cronies. At the expense of US taxpayers.

Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:30 AM : Aug 31, 2007"

Basically, we would need a new JFK, somebody capable of stopping "Operation Northwoods" (did you read about it ?). We needed this badly in 2001 too, I''m convinced.

[incog-nito]

abbe91: You forgot about rushman71.

My point is that of course you shouldn''t agree w/ a candidate on everything. You''d be a mindless stooge if you do (as evidenced by the Bush defenders). There are unfortunately only two parties in the U.S., and of course you can''t, and probably shouldn''t, agree with everything on your party''s platform. But to be a one-issue voter is simply naive. Might as well hand the victory to the other side.

[abbe91]

"tuckerndfw: You''''re contradicting yourself. All the GOP candidate except for Ron Paul support the war, and he''''s not going anywhere. So you strong oppose the war but will still vote for somebody who supports it. Talk about naive.
Posted by incog-nito at 11:21 AM : Aug 31, 2007"

My point too. But I also notice, and that might be a first, that we have can a decent, constructive debate here without (much) name calling. Maybe it''s to early for mudrose and co.

[incog-nito]

rushman71: Nobody, left or right, can be worse than Bush. Because at least the next president will likely not be an imbecile.

[abbe91]

"y''''all would probably come to understand that Bush wasn''''t as bad as originally thought!!!
Posted by rushman71 at 11:19 AM : Aug 31, 2007"

Or discover that it was much worse than we tought.

[themurph2000]

I sold a house in 1983 for less money than I paid for it in 1977 thanks to those "good years."

I have no real interest in debating the finer points of those years, I merely disagree they were "good years."
Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:02 AM : Aug 31, 2007

There were some bad years there, no question about it. Won''t deny that for a minute. I remember Reaganomics. I remember my parents struggling like hell in the early 80''s as our family starting hitting college age and still had several still entering high school. All of us had to pay (or at least help pay) for our college education. High school, too, actually.

That aside, the one thing Reagan and Clinton shared, though, was a second term won in a landslide. They were both beneficiaries of a good economy at the time of said election, whether they caused it or not.

[rushman71]

Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:15 AM

For once I agree with you here!!! LOL

[incog-nito]

tuckerndfw: You''re contradicting yourself. All the GOP candidate except for Ron Paul support the war, and he''s not going anywhere. So you strong oppose the war but will still vote for somebody who supports it. Talk about naive.

[abbe91]

And my opposition extends to any politician who supports that misuse of the US military, especially Hillary and McCain. (Giuliani, others)
Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:15 AM : Aug 31, 2007

Make sense to me but what do you do in case it''s Clinton vs Giuliani ? I wouldn''t vote for somebody who is likely to have been ***involved*** in 911 ...

[rushman71]

I can''t stand Billary, but since all of you liberal pigs won''t shut up and come down to your senses, let the danm butchbitch win!!! Maybe after the first 4 years of her/him/it serving as our Pres. y''all would probably come to understand that Bush wasn''t as bad as originally thought!!!

[abbe91]

"If Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary to be their candidate, I will vote for the Republican alternative.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:59 AM : Aug 31, 2007"

which could be Giuliani ... the famous 911 "hero".

[abbe91]

"I have been against the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq since before it became fashionable to oppose the invasion of Iraq."

Do you mean, before they took place ? at the time of the voting ? You''ll notice that I agree with you on many points and indeed being against the invasions was unpopular at the time but ...

"I continue to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan despite the unpopularity of that position."

I don''t think it is unpopular anymore, well, depends where you live, of course.

Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:40 AM : Aug 31, 2007"

I wouldn''t vote for Clinton in primaries (my choice). Following your arguments, you must intend
to vote for somebody who opposed the invasions from the first day ... Obama ?

[themurph2000]

You claimed the US had "good years" during the Reagan presidency. That is not true. Reagan, like Bozo Bush, borrowed his way through his presidency, ...

Which is the same tactic employed by Bozo Bush. Congress will have to pass another huge tax increase to pay for Bozo''''s (and Hillary''''s) borrow and spend policies.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:33 AM : Aug 31, 2007

Both statements are partially correct. We had good years under Reagan BECAUSE he borrowed against the debt. (not all 8 years were good, mind you, but you can use the same argument with Clinton''s 8). He passed on his financial troubles to old man Bush. It''s true that the economy goes in waves. Unfortunately, you can''t tell the average American that, because they have bills and employment concerns right then and there. A hands-off approach to the economy (like old man Bush tried) doesn''t work in the political sense during a recession.

I agree that "Bozo" Bush, as you put it, doesn''t get the economics of this. You can''t have tax cuts and spend like a madman at the same time. It just doesn''t work. Right now, China owns a ****load of U.S. Treasury Bonds that the current Bush put out there. This would likely explain our very tenuous relationship with them.

The bill is coming due very soon. I don''t envy the next President, regardless of which party is in the White House.

[incog-nito]

Vote for your nominee, pure and simple. The reason the GOP won the past 2 elections? They vote for the party while Dems vote for the person. That may sound like a principled thing to do, but it''s really just being absurdly naive. Politics is about compromise. You may not agree with a candidate on everything, but you probably agree on some things. And to bring about the things you agree on, the first thing you need to do is WIN. Not much may happen if you do win, but NOTHING will happen or worse if you don''t. So drop the "principle" B.S. and vote your party. Look at where "principle" got Ralph Nader (anybody heard from him lately?).