Ray, I don't think anybody knows. But the going-in feeling was that McKinney and Majette were close. If some voters perceived (incorrectly) that since two black women were running against each other, their primary vote didn't matter, then a low Democratic turn out would be susceptible to influence from Republican crossover. hard to prove anyway.
Funny how times are turning. Bob Barr starts out making a name for himself by zealously prosecuting a conservative Republican politician. Then runs and gets elected as a conservative Republican and gets a nationwide reputation as a yahoo (which I don't believe he deserved - but never mind) by, among other things, calling for Bubba's impeachment - way before it happened; and now belatedly, is receiving some kudos from the left for his principled opposition to various anti-terrorism measures. Sort of like Ariana Huffington, your next California governor (chuckle, chuckle).
Jeff. Sorry. I mean "not once". Max's patriotism was not questioned. Was there through the whole thing (not only did Max lose, King Roy lost and Cynthia McKinney lost). And no, that would not be a press release from Saxby, but a statement from an urban, left wing, artsy-fartsy paper - Creative Loafing - purporting to interpret a press release etc. What liberals wanted was to put Max's politically stupid vote on homeland security off the agenda. When it didn't happen, they screamed about his patriotism being challenged. Why didn't Max listen to his senior senator?
Among the rumored candidates for Zell's seat, in addition to JI/R, Sam Nunn's daughter/D, Andrew Young/D, Cynthia McKinney/??, Marshall/D. Young might withdraw if Nunnette commits.
Hey Zizka, add a "yet" after that "either". They're getting close. Boy, that would rain on the progressives' picnic, wouldn't it.
Re Saxby Chambliss and Max Cleland. Not once was Max's patriotism questioned. Max was ran as a conservative Democrat similar to zigzag Zell Miller and got to Washington and voted like a liberal. His votes out of line with Sen Miller and Pres. Bush, including those on homeland security, were presented to the people to judge as they saw fit. The people spoke. Max's left wing pals got him voted out of office. What works in California doesn't work in south Georgia. Georgia is trending heavily Republican - Max was ill served by his staff. Next up - Senator Johnny Isaakson.
Then, maybe its not really this great big dark massive, apocalyptic conspiracy but just some little meaningless trinket which has the hate-Bushies hyperventilating. Hey guys, there's no Santa Claus, no devil, no massive conspiracy, just boring ol' day to day life.
Its all semantics. Of course, gay people have the same (marriage) rights as non-gay people, if you define marriage as a contract between a male and a female (a gay male could marry a gay feamle). They do not if you believe the legal definition of marriage does not distinguish between male and female. I don't see that it hurts me an iota if gays marry either way, but I understand a religion taking up what they see as a principled stand against the concept. Easy answer: don't be a Catholic.
I like Bush, but, hell, lets not compare him to Churchill - yet.
And I guess we need to keep Bush around for four more then, because the war on terrorism is ongoing. Once its won, say after Jeb's eight years, we'll let a moderate southern democrat (the only kind that can get elected) have four years to drive the misery index off the charts.
AWOL poser? Vapid jingo? Does this mean I won the debate? Have a good weekend.
Wrong about it being a stupid statement. Wrong about it being some politically charged booby trap. Not so. This isn't the killer issue you wish it to be. He was conveying a message to the troops, who were and are going in harm's way. They understand and appreciate. Disagree with him all you want about Iraq -there's plenty of room for reasonable disagreement there- but inflating this little pat on the rump to the troops won't hurt him with middle America.
Franks is a bright guy. He didn't have to say it. Get over it. You guys are wrong on this one. Pick another issue. Sorry.
General Franks has come out and basically echoed President Bush's fighting remarks. Hmmm. As I said, the soldiers get it.
The surest way for us jack-booted right wingers to get our way is for the left to stay mired in that hate-Bush fever swamp. Go HoDean!
Retired after 28 years in the AF and I appreciate the CinC's remarks. So does every other blue suiter I know. Its called fighting spirit. The troops need it and want it. They do not want a commander who "feels their pain". If you don't want fighting spiirt, then don't have soldiers.
And whoever equated Pres. Clinton's "service" record with Dubya's doesn't understand. Try flying a fighter sometime and then take a friendly trip to Oxford. Then, after cleaning out your pants, compare. See what I mean.
Also thanks. Hopefully, there will come a time in the near future when our foreign policy focus can shift from the mid-East to South America - a lot going on down there with Lula de Silva and Chavez.
Teresa,
Since you ask. Re rhetorically, etc.: A little of both. I'm no Nixon expert, period. My view is that, in a nutshell, Nixon's really big crime was using the power of his office to hinder an investigation. Like I said, that's flat out wrong; but is it a historical watershed wrong? Don't you think that other presidents and politicians have used the power of their office, illicitly, for personal benefit of some sort. If Nixon's magnitude of sin was greater, was it that much greater (to warrant historical oppobrium)?
CJ
I agree with the libertarian approach also. I love bad old movies (a sleeper for you: check out the early fifties western called Slaughter Trail, not so sleazy, but really bad in a unique way - you'll see). My experience (and frustration) is that conservatives are generally ignorant of and inept within the entertainment field. We pissed and moaned about perceived liberal media bias for decades and then Fox came along and, whoops, we could create our own (perceived) biased network. We could do the same in movies, but I bet we don't get there. Myself, I would be quite happy with good and bad, liberal and conservative movies pouring out of Hollywood's sausage maker.
Simon, I do, of course, believe there are points where the ends do not justify the means - chasng spies or whatever. And I do agree more people agree w/you re HUAC and undoubtedly Nixon.
Mr. Womack, re 1-7, good answer, but is that hugely different from what other president's have done?
Clinton used the IRS to harass political opponents.
CJ
You know, I agree with you about the marketplace remark. I'm not saying anybody should force Hollywood to change if the market won't and (paradoxically, I guess) and I think most consumers are apolitical about the movies and stars they like. Lets just say I wish there was a (small) steady diet of non-liberal, non-leftist-ethos movies out there for us true-believing troglodytes. Probably "soul' was not the best word, but I would say Costa Gavras movies have leftist soul, for instance.
Simon,
I seem to be irritating you and don't mean to. I refuse to get personal, even electronically. No "demands". I just wanted to hear, off the cuff, in your own and/or Teresa's very brief words, what it was Nixon did that was so horrible. I gave you what my answer would be to that question. My point being that most people believe Nixon was bad, but really don't know what he did or didn't do.
As regards HUAC and your driver analogy, I believe the drunken driver who murders another innocent driver is a much greater problem for society than the policeman who, one time out of whatever, has an accident trying to catch him. Society, of course, has to weigh the cost/benefit of not chasing and letting the drunken driver possibly kill again, versus the accident potential of the chase. I would guess that's not an easy one to resolve. Likewise, IMO the espionage problem was worse than the errors and excesses committed by HUAC in trying to correct it.
Teresa and Simon, You both make my point rather well re the Trickster. Why not tell me IN YOUR OWN WORDS what it was that Nixon did that so horrible. If it was so clearly horrible, you should be able to nail it right away and succinctly. Jimmy Carter gave us a plus 20 misery index (but see below). Clinton lied under oath and had "sex" with an intern in the oval office. My answer would be that Nixon used his presidential power to cover up the investigation of a crime. That ain't good, but it also doesn't seem to me to set Nixon that far apart from other presidential transgressors that don't get the "treatment".
I know about HUAC and McCarthyism. Again, did you know HUAC was originated by New Dealers to hunt Nazi spies and that one of its founders was an actual grade A certified commie spy? You can criticize HUAC a ton and some of it may well be warranted, but again there was clearly a significant security/espionage problem, and the Democratic administration(s), despite receiving many warnings, were doing very little about it. At least HUAC was trying to fight the totalitarians.
I live in Atlanta and the establishment and media here, especially the paper, love Clinton and really really really love Carter. He can do no wrong. We get daily lessons in Jimmuh's pious greatness. On Clinton, I do hear some irrational garbage from the right wing, but from the main stream media and almost all major papers, I hear/see adulation. I would expect that in some areas a little further to the left than I normally frequent, he's regarded less favorably - but no doubt a man with all the right enemies.
Roz, taking off my sometime political blinders, I sometimes wonder if the oil embargo had not been going on, would history have been kinder to Carter the president. But then that begs the huge question of whether presidents really make that much of a difference as individuals, given our checks and balances system of government. Everything seems to get filtered a bit -homogenized.
Re-Reed. No golden boy in my book. Good intentions don't cut it. Nazi's THOUGHT they were doing good. The Reed's of the world enable the bad guys. The hero's are those main streamers who are patient, work hard, generally play by the rules and thereby help the condition of life for all to slowly but surely improve.
Roz,
Well said. You're right about the Stalinist comment. I should have probably used Leninist.My point, though, is that we do know now and have known for a long time about the unimaginable horrors that sprang from Nov. 1917, yet we make a movie sympathetic to a significant co-ideologist, apologist for that movement. Reed isn't so important, himself, but what about those millions upon millions murdered in his movement's name. I have always been puzzled by the lack of outrage - from all quarters.
I agree that elements of the right went overboard on Clinton (particularly with regard the Stone-esque like murder conspiracy theories), but disgree completely about Nixon. I actually think he was a great man (stop laughing!). Also there has been as much blind adulation of Clinton and Carter as there has been hate of Clinton (not so much Carter).
CJ
Don't know when you grew up, but I have seen very few movies with conservative "soul" over the last couple of decades decades. I'd be interested to know two recent movies you consider conservative.
Simon,
I don't agree that McCarthy did all that much harm. Of course, modern historical consensus is wih your position, but I believe he mostly overstated (like on Lattimore - who does not meet my definition of "innocent" either) and was careless with numbers and definitions (security risks vs. spies). The most harm he did in my view was politicizing the security risk problem which spurred political cover ups of the same (Tydings)and thereby let the problem continue. HUAC was a Democratic creature originated to get suspected pro-Nazi spies, but then changed when it was perceived there was a greater problem from commies. They screwed up at times, but they were chasing history's bad guys.
re Nixon. You admit he's gotten the "treatment" but that he deserved it. Please tell me in simple words what it was Nixon did that was so horrible and try to differentiate it from what other presidents/politicians in power have done and still do. I have not watched Stone's Nixon, but otherwise I have yet to ever see a sympathetic portrayal of the man. He's always the one-dimensional,evil unshaven crook.
C.J., Don't want to prolong this and I know I won't convince you, but the mere fact that there are war movies, etc. does not mean they are conservative. (After all WWII was a fight in alliance with a communits superpower against fascism.) For me a conservative movie would mean "cooking the books" with an ideological message the way liberal movies do. It would mean taking disreputable rightist figures and interpreting them in a nuanced, almost heroic fashion ala Stalinist John Reed. It would mean for decades having the bad guys, instead of Christians and businessmen, be leftist college professors, reporters, and trial lawyers. It would mean giving Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton the Nixon treatment. I could go on.
Simon, your last point about Kazan is probably right. Doesn't change my overall view of Hollywood, though. Also,I know a bit about HUAC and, I think, overall, that their problem was that they didn't do enough - they didn't expose a lot of the spies that we now know were out there, thanks to Venona and the opening of Soviet archives (HUAC, of course, a different critter than the tail gunner).
Hey Roz, its my Hollywood fantasy: A contrarian take on the unquestioned Hollywood saint. After that, we'd give Jimmy Carter the once over. I think I would feel the kind of emotion cited about Moore at the start of this thread.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2003 | 30 |
Total: 30 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Doug:
Show all comments by Doug.