Mission accomplished



In article <[email protected]>,
William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Robert Chung wrote:
> >> William Asher wrote:
> >> >
> >> > But did the earth move?
> >>
> >> My heart flutters whenever I hear "Hail to the Chief":
> >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6185603495801760929
> >
> > If you go to the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library
> > and Birthplace in Yorba Linda, CA, in the bathrooms
> > you will hear piped-in music that is, yes, "Hail to the Chief."
> >
> > The Nixon Library has a room full of life-size bronze
> > statues of world leaders RMN encountered during his
> > career (including Khrushchev and Chou En-lai), historical
> > exhibits including a room (a long dark corridor) on Watergate,
> > where you can listen to a few excerpts from the White House
> > tapes, and the most awesomest gift shop ever. It is a good
> > reason to go to Orange County, and that's a pretty strong
> > endorsement.
> >
>
> Actually, Wild Rivers Water Park is also on my must-see list of
> destinations in Orange County. But I have a thing for water parks built
> on the site of wildlife safari places where a tiger once ate a little
> boy. Call me a sentimentalist.

Sentimentality is the superstructure erected upon brutality.
-- Carl Jung

--
Michael Press
 
Bill C wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Robert Chung wrote:
>>>> My heart flutters whenever I hear "Hail to the Chief":
>>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6185603495801760929
>>> If you go to the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library
>>> and Birthplace in Yorba Linda, CA, in the bathrooms
>>> you will hear piped-in music that is, yes, "Hail to the Chief."
>> Hmmm. You're saying I could take a leak in Richard M. Nixon's birthplace?
>> Intriguing thought.
>>
>> Speaking of taking a dump, the president has entered Nixonian territory
>> with these latest polls. I had to expand the range of my graphs in order
>> to fit them in.
>
> Looks like they're finally going to bring an indictment against Rove
> too. The only thing keeping a smile off my face right now is that
> instead of concentrating on taking control of Congress, the Democrats
> are fighting with Dean and amongst themselves. That was one of the
> stupdest moves known to man IMO when they handed the DNC to Dean.
> The only way in hell they can screw these coming elections up is by
> screwing themselves over, and it sure looks like they are trying really
> hard.

The fifty-state strategy seems sound. Challenge the Republicans
everywhere, even if it's a token challenge. The Republicans are looking
so weak at this point, that we could actually see some stunning results.

Well, the election is still six months away. I'll probably slit my
wrists if the Dem's don't take at least one house back.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
Just saw this movie tonight at the local art house, and the filmmaker
was there with his three-ton brass balls. (Insert LANCE joke here:)

He went to his local ABC affiliate with the ides of filming a
documentary from Iraq. They didn't want any liability, so they gave him
some money but no press pass.

He forges his own at Kinko's. Gets to Iraq, does not hide in the Green
Zone. Walks the streets, talks to and films people. Heads to Camp
Anaconda, the big-ass US base in Balad (north of Baghdad). Films &
interviews troops. Goes to Anbar province at the Syrian border, gets
"qualified" as an M-1 gunner, goes on patrol. Hilarity ensues.

I suspect he's a liberal. He's definitely not in favor of war. But any
commentary is skimpy, and the film is a good effort to show the good,
bad and ugly. Definitely a hell of a lot more than you get in the news,
or talking to someone who's served there, or from any of the liberal,
conservative or neo-con blogs.

http://www.insideiraqthemovie.com/index.html

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
On 05/13/2006 11:05 PM, in article [email protected], "Raptor"
<[email protected]> wrote:


> Well, the election is still six months away. I'll probably slit my
> wrists if the Dem's don't take at least one house back.


Wasn't it about this time 2 years ago that John Swallow was already casting
Jim Matheson as the devil incarnate?

Haven't seen a single political ad in SLC yet.



--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash
 
Raptor wrote:
> Just saw this movie tonight at the local art house, and the filmmaker
> was there with his three-ton brass balls. (Insert LANCE joke here:)
>
> He went to his local ABC affiliate with the ides of filming a
> documentary from Iraq. They didn't want any liability, so they gave him
> some money but no press pass.
>
> He forges his own at Kinko's. Gets to Iraq, does not hide in the Green
> Zone. Walks the streets, talks to and films people. Heads to Camp
> Anaconda, the big-ass US base in Balad (north of Baghdad). Films &
> interviews troops. Goes to Anbar province at the Syrian border, gets
> "qualified" as an M-1 gunner, goes on patrol. Hilarity ensues.
>
> I suspect he's a liberal. He's definitely not in favor of war. But any
> commentary is skimpy, and the film is a good effort to show the good,
> bad and ugly. Definitely a hell of a lot more than you get in the news,
> or talking to someone who's served there, or from any of the liberal,
> conservative or neo-con blogs.
>
> http://www.insideiraqthemovie.com/index.html
>
> --
> Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
> I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
> trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
> the most insidious of traitors."
> George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

That's cool. We really need more of that, not the garbage we get. If
you want to read a very interesting book sort of on this subject check
out:
http://journalism.nyu.edu/portfolio/books/book230.html

Michael Herr, Dispatches (Knopf, 1977)
Herr brought the Vietnam War back home in all its uncensored,
unadulterated reality in Dispatches. Proclaimed as the greatest book
written not only on the Vietnam War, but also on any war, Dispatches
only made it into print as a book ten years after Herr went to Vietnam
as a correspondent for Esquire.

Fantastic book. Sean Flynn and Dana Stone, who are a large part of the
book, were amazing people who, unfortunately, didn't come back.
I actually heard from Rory Flynn recently, Sean's sister and Errol's
daughter, and she's got a lot in her new book about Sean. Got to get
it.
Bill C
 
Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
> On 05/13/2006 11:05 PM, in article [email protected], "Raptor"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Well, the election is still six months away. I'll probably slit my
>> wrists if the Dem's don't take at least one house back.
>
>
> Wasn't it about this time 2 years ago that John Swallow was already casting
> Jim Matheson as the devil incarnate?
>
> Haven't seen a single political ad in SLC yet.

Matheson is safe. Maybe not in the official designation of Congressional
Quarterly, but he'll win. He knows how to cast the right throwaway votes
to get re-elected.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 

>Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
>> On 05/13/2006 11:05 PM, in article [email protected], "Raptor"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Well, the election is still six months away. I'll probably slit my
>>> wrists if the Dem's don't take at least one house back.


Conventional wisdom says that the Dems pick up seats in the 6th year
of a two term President. Picking up 5 seats in the Senate seems
unlikely, but 15 seats in the House is doable.

However, in the last few weeks, a wildcard has come up. All those
illegal immigrants parading around carrying Mexican flags has cause
something of a backlash. Generally speaking, the Democrats are less
in the mainstream on this issue than the Republicans. This is an
issue that resonates with the public.

Also, a lot of Democrats are counting on Bush's low approval ratings
to help in the Congressional elections. If you look at the 2002 and
2004 elections, the percentage of Congressional votes going to each
party were almost identical. However, Bush's approval rating was
around 70% in 2002 and at 47% in 2004. Conclusion, I don't approve of
Bush does not automatically translate into I'm going to vote for a
Democrat for the House and Senate. Local elections tend to swing on
local issues.

Nevertheless, I predict the Dems will take control of the House and
then spend two years alienating the public with meaningless
investigations of an outgoing President, which will set up the
Republicans to take back control of the House in 2008 and insure a
Republican in the White House.

Strange, but if the Republicans keep control of both Houses of
Congress it will make it easier for a Democratic to win the WH in
2008.
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> Also, a lot of Democrats are counting on Bush's low approval ratings
> to help in the Congressional elections. If you look at the 2002 and
> 2004 elections, the percentage of Congressional votes going to each
> party were almost identical. However, Bush's approval rating was
> around 70% in 2002 and at 47% in 2004. Conclusion, I don't approve of
> Bush does not automatically translate into I'm going to vote for a
> Democrat for the House and Senate. Local elections tend to swing on
> local issues.

Mid-terms are quite different than presidential election years. Here is
the relationship between presidential approval in May and change in the
president's party's composition in the House in November of mid-term
years.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/polls/midtermapprovalmay.png

Presidential approval doesn't automatically translate into votes for that
party's House representatives, but the overall fit is actually quite good.
The question is whether recent gerrymandering has weakened the historical
relationship--I suspect it has, but we'll see in November.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:

> then spend two years alienating the public with meaningless
> investigations of an outgoing President, which will set up the
> Republicans to take back control of the House in 2008 and insure a
> Republican in the White House.

You're welcome to think of it as "meaningless", Jack, but the Democrats with
subpoena power is exactly why the White House is going to pull out all the stops in
an effort to prevent the loss of even one branch of Congress.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Sun, 14 May 2006 15:26:27 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You're welcome to think of it as "meaningless", Jack, but the Democrats with
>subpoena power is exactly why the White House is going to pull out all the stops in
>an effort to prevent the loss of even one branch of Congress.


Basically, both parties pull out all the stops for every election.

My prediction, if the Dems get control of the House and start a lot of
investigations of Bush, they will lose in the end. I remember the
Iran/Contra investigations aimed at Reagan. There stood Oliver North
making all the petty politicians look pale by comparison, Bush won the
WH and Reagan is now regarded as one of America's great Presidents.
Besides, what are they going to investigate that hasn't been beaten to
death?

If they do get control, it would be in their own inbterests to
actually try and do something positive rather than hash out old
greviances.
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 15:26:27 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You're welcome to think of it as "meaningless", Jack, but the Democrats with
>> subpoena power is exactly why the White House is going to pull out all the stops in
>> an effort to prevent the loss of even one branch of Congress.
>
>
> Basically, both parties pull out all the stops for every election.
>
> My prediction, if the Dems get control of the House and start a lot of
> investigations of Bush, they will lose in the end. I remember the
> Iran/Contra investigations aimed at Reagan. There stood Oliver North
> making all the petty politicians look pale by comparison, Bush won the
> WH and Reagan is now regarded as one of America's great Presidents.
> Besides, what are they going to investigate that hasn't been beaten to
> death?

NSA stuff, Cheney energy policy, pay-for-play (with ethics being "in,"
it pays to work it).

The Valerie Plame affair might well turn into an impeachable offense.

After the Republicans did their apparent kamikaze against Clinton, who
"won" the next presidential election? Of course, now the courts are stacked.

> If they do get control, it would be in their own inbterests to
> actually try and do something positive rather than hash out old
> greviances.

There is a LOT of work to be done to fix what's been broken in the last
six years. Tax correction & the deficit, Katrina, Iraq, health
insurance, national security, hemorrhaging of cash just about everywhere
the government is.

Republicans believe government is the problem, then start to make it so
when they get elected. Democrats believe government is necessary, so
they at least try to make it work.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
Robert Chung wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:

> > If you go to the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library
> > and Birthplace in Yorba Linda, CA, in the bathrooms
> > you will hear piped-in music that is, yes, "Hail to the Chief."
>
> Hmmm. You're saying I could take a leak in Richard M. Nixon's birthplace?
> Intriguing thought.

You must be a bike racer. Because the first thing a
bike racer is always thinking about is, "Where can I find
a place to pee?"

The Nixon Library is a big modern building built next to
the actual birthplace, which is on its original site

<http://www.nixonfoundation.org/index.php?submenu=museum&src=gendocs&link=TheBirthplace>

a very modest little California house. Nixon didn't come from
money. It was once a little farm, but being Orange County,
now it's next to a bunch of strip malls. I didn't actually go inside
the birthplace house, so I can't tell you if it has a working bathroom.

> Speaking of taking a dump, the president has entered Nixonian territory
> with these latest polls. I had to expand the range of my graphs in order
> to fit them in.

Nixon was evil, but fascinating. GWB isn't fascinating.
Even Big Time **** Cheney's grudges and little secrecies
are small time compared to Nixon's.

Arguably another difference is that Nixon, whatever you think
of his moral fiber, was possibly mostly competent; it may be
unfair to compare a third rate burglary to a third rate presidency.

Ben
 
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>then spend two years alienating the public with meaningless
>>investigations of an outgoing President, which will set up the
>>Republicans to take back control of the House in 2008 and insure a
>>Republican in the White House.
>
>
> You're welcome to think of it as "meaningless", Jack, but the Democrats with
> subpoena power is exactly why the White House is going to pull out all the stops in
> an effort to prevent the loss of even one branch of Congress.
>

Hmmm, I'm not sure. A conspiracy theorist would be asking: who is in
line for succession as President if Bush is successfully impeached?
(and is it the same person who set him up to launch an illegal domestic
spying program?)
 
On Mon, 15 May 2006 18:28:00 +1200, Stu Fleming <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Hmmm, I'm not sure. A conspiracy theorist would be asking: who is in
>line for succession as President if Bush is successfully impeached?
>(and is it the same person who set him up to launch an illegal domestic
>spying program?)

A lot of work to have the office for a couple of years. Get real, the
VP is not electable for a complete term even if the Republicans were
on an upsurge.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Sun, 14 May 2006 22:40:53 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Republicans believe government is the problem, then start to make it so
>when they get elected. Democrats believe government is necessary, so
>they at least try to make it work.

This is where we clearly part ways. I have no such great faith in the
Democrats. The start to a better government is the dismantling of the
barriers to entry miposed in so many states by the Democrats and the
Republicans, especially for national elections.

A discerning junkyard dog would quit either party in disgust. The rest
get hired as consultants.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On 14 May 2006 23:13:55 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Arguably another difference is that Nixon, whatever you think
>of his moral fiber, was possibly mostly competent; it may be
>unfair to compare a third rate burglary to a third rate presidency.

The Nixon presidency was far from incompetent and Nixon was far from
stupid. Republicans like to call their opponents unpatriotic and the
Democrats like to call their opponents stupid. It appears that the
Democrats do worse when they start to believe themselves than the
Republicans.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
Raptor wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 May 2006 15:26:27 -0700, Howard Kveck
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> You're welcome to think of it as "meaningless", Jack, but the Democrats with
> >> subpoena power is exactly why the White House is going to pull out all the stops in
> >> an effort to prevent the loss of even one branch of Congress.
> >
> >
> > Basically, both parties pull out all the stops for every election.
> >
> > My prediction, if the Dems get control of the House and start a lot of
> > investigations of Bush, they will lose in the end. I remember the
> > Iran/Contra investigations aimed at Reagan. There stood Oliver North
> > making all the petty politicians look pale by comparison, Bush won the
> > WH and Reagan is now regarded as one of America's great Presidents.
> > Besides, what are they going to investigate that hasn't been beaten to
> > death?
>
> NSA stuff, Cheney energy policy, pay-for-play (with ethics being "in,"
> it pays to work it).
> --
> Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
> I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
> trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
> the most insidious of traitors."
> George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

I'd love to see an in-depth investigation into the current military
contracting/privatization that had subpeona power. An awful lot of
those no bid contracts, fraudulent and faulty services and goods,
unqualified/non-existant personell supposedly on the job in security
etc...
IMO there's more than enough outright fraud, bribery, and corruption
in just this sector alone to put a shitload of the administration in
jail over.
Then we could take a real hard look at just what the hell Fatherland
Security and Fema have been up to, and where all that money has been
going, and why.
I voted for them the first time, because I figured he couldn't
possibly be worse than Gore. Still not sure that isn't true, but I also
told Brian that I'd be right there with him holding these clowns
responsible if it was as bad as he thought it was going to be. In that
case Bush has greatly exceeded expectations and needs his ass ridden
out of town on a rail along with his buddies. Preferably right into a
nice cage at Gitmo since they've done more damage to our country and
military than anyone being held there has.
Now were going to throw an overextended, desperate for recruits and
retention, almost broken, totally underequipped National Guard at the
border.
Smooth move Georgie!
Bill C
 
On 15 May 2006 13:32:24 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> IMO there's more than enough outright fraud, bribery, and corruption
>in just this sector alone to put a shitload of the administration in
>jail over.

LOL. No one is going to do any such thing. You don't live in the
fantasy world where you think the Republicans are more corrupt than
the Democrats, do you? I'd love to see an audit of the Big Dig in
Boston that's gone from $2.2 billion to $14 billion. I'm sure there
are lots of Democrats and their supportes lining their pockets with
cash.

Did you know that the House has a truce on where no one will file
ethics violations against anyone else?
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 22:40:53 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Republicans believe government is the problem, then start to make it so
>> when they get elected. Democrats believe government is necessary, so
>> they at least try to make it work.
>
> This is where we clearly part ways. I have no such great faith in the
> Democrats. The start to a better government is the dismantling of the
> barriers to entry miposed in so many states by the Democrats and the
> Republicans, especially for national elections.
>
> A discerning junkyard dog would quit either party in disgust. The rest
> get hired as consultants.

Like all generalizations, mine has significant limits on its usefulness.

There are huge problems in our electoral system. I think publicly-funded
campaigns are necessary to reform it. But between the Republicans and
Democrats, the choice is clear to me and becoming clear to most voters.
So it appears.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Re: Mission accomplished +5
Replies
11
Views
371
Road Cycling
Howard Kveck
H
R
Mission accomplished +5
Replies
214
Views
5K
Road Cycling
Bill C
B
F
VDB ( Mission accomplished )
Replies
8
Views
453
Road Cycling
Donald Munro
D
Z
Mission Accomplished (0.967+%)
Replies
8
Views
313
Road Cycling
Tom Sherman
T
E
Mission accomplished
Replies
15
Views
998
Road Cycling
Drs
D
Top Bottom Back