Nader To Run Again

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker+28 February 2004 - 02:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 28 February 2004 - 02:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@26 February 2004 - 22:43



...........before you take steps to..........get the same President re-elected?


Now that&#39;s not very smart now is it?

I&#39;ve never claimed to be smart.

BTW, can&#39;t say I&#39;m impressed with the way your style of political pragmatism has been working out.
What&#39;s going to be different this time round? [/b][/quote]
Well the way I see that YOU see it:

The sky is falling

There&#39;s massive corruption

The President says everything is fine ...

You DONT think everything is fine but....

You......wanna keep the same man in office?


Is that being pragmatic?

[clocker]

I guess that you assume that a Democratic President will solve all these problems.
I don&#39;t.

[Agrajag]

I take a horrendously simplistic view on this type of thing. Vote for the person you think is best suited for the job and whose policies you most agree with.

Can I also add that, as openness seems to be lauded here. Then surely Bush deserves credit for his openness about the proposed amendment to your constitution. Whether you agree with the actual amendment or not, at least he has had the honesty to make his view public

[clocker]

Bush&#39;s perceived "openness" seems hideously hypocritical to me.

On this issue he is concerned about "activist judges" bypassing the will of the people.

When activist judges handed him the election, that was OK.

[Agrajag]

Clocker

You seemed to praise Mr Nader for making his view on this issue clear. It appears the President has done the same thing and made his view clear. Is Mr Bush not therefore also to be congratulated, in a spirit of fairness ? Whilst disagreeing with the actual view he takes. Or do you reserve your praise of openness to those who openly agree with you ?

[clocker]

I don&#39;t see Bush&#39;s declaration of his position as "openness" so much as a very cynical political ploy.

It&#39;s convenient for Bush to now focus on this issue as it provides a very emotional, high-profile distraction from all his other political failures.
Bush has to be aware that a constitutional amendment like this has ZERO chance of actually passing.
For a man who professes to be a "great uniter", Bush is certainly fond of picking devisive issues to champion.
Pandering to the religious right makes a great deal of sense right now for Bush.
It keeps the campaign money flowing and turns attention away from the issues that he should be addressing and that he could actually positively influence.

When Nader stated his position ( as I mentioned before), he did it within 1 hour of declaring his candidacy, no waffling or prevaricating...testing the political waters before jumping off a fence. He just casually said yes, of course he was for it.
He has also stated that it is not/should not be a central issue in this campaign, as we currently face far more pressing issues.

I don&#39;t credit Bush with the same transparency of belief.
He has tried to play both sides as long as possible and now has decided that more political hay can be reaped by plunking down on the side of the religious/politically conservative right than by taking the middle road.
Ultimately, it&#39;s the individual states that will decide this issue.
And Bush knows it.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by clocker@28 February 2004 - 16:38
I don&#39;t see Bush&#39;s declaration of his position as "openness" so much as a very cynical political ploy.

It&#39;s convenient for Bush to now focus on this issue as it provides a very emotional, high-profile distraction from all his other political failures.
Bush has to be aware that a constitutional amendment like this has ZERO chance of actually passing.
For a man who professes to be a "great uniter", Bush is certainly fond of picking devisive issues to champion.
Pandering to the religious right makes a great deal of sense right now for Bush.
It keeps the campaign money flowing and turns attention away from the issues that he should be addressing and that he could actually positively influence.

When Nader stated his position ( as I mentioned before), he did it within 1 hour of declaring his candidacy, no waffling or prevaricating...testing the political waters before jumping off a fence. He just casually said yes, of course he was for it.
He has also stated that it is not/should not be a central issue in this campaign, as we currently face far more pressing issues.

I don&#39;t credit Bush with the same transparency of belief.
He has tried to play both sides as long as possible and now has decided that more political hay can be reaped by plunking down on the side of the religious/politically conservative right than by taking the middle road.
Ultimately, it&#39;s the individual states that will decide this issue.
And Bush knows it.

Have you considered "spin" as a career. Rather than praise the man for doing exactly what you ask of him, to clearly state his view on a given subject, you come up with various reasons why it was a bad thing for him to have done. Seems like a lose / lose to me, damned if he does, damned if he doesn&#39;t.

You sir are a scoundrel.

[clocker]

I never "asked" for Bush&#39;s views on the subject at all...they are irrelevant.
The matter of marriage between same sex couples is best left to individual states to decide.

Bush&#39;s decision to make this issue a centerpiece of his campaign is what I find abhorrent.
No "spin" in that.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by clocker@28 February 2004 - 17:11
I never "asked" for Bush&#39;s views on the subject at all...they are irrelevant.
The matter of marriage between same sex couples is best left to individual states to decide.

Bush&#39;s decision to make this issue a centerpiece of his campaign is what I find abhorrent.
No "spin" in that.

My apologies for lack of clarity, I meant any given subject.

It makes you no less of a scoundrel though.