| Author | Message | ||
     lumpyhead Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 1161 Registered: 3-2002 |
And I think you will find that not true with many conservatives. | ||
| Wendyn Supporter Username: Wendyn Post Number: 1431 Registered: 9-2002 |
Lumpy, you are correct. I still think Condi running would be the best thing that happened to the Democratic party in a long time. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3216 Registered: 8-2003 |
It was Gene Washington, former wide receiver with the SF 49ers back in the John Brodie days. His position with the NFL had to do with disciplinary actions against players if my memory serves. | ||
| Parkbench87 Citizen Username: Parkbench87 Post Number: 1786 Registered: 7-2001  |
Gene Washington was a Standford grad | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7802 Registered: 5-2001 |
Was? Did they take his degree away?  | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 174 Registered: 6-2001 |
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2610442p-3026695c.html Missile Counter-Attack Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Thursday, March 3rd, 2005 By LLOYD AXWORTHY Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more. I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results. But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game. As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence. Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children. Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny. Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such a missile defence can be made openly. You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations. Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience. Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire. If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond. Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies. Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter). I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world. These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states. To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto. To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan. And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices. On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will. This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means. There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water. Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree. Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power. In friendship, Lloyd Axworthy (Lloyd Axworthy is president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister) | ||
| SO Refugee Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 33 Registered: 2-2005  |
It will never happen. The bible belt will vote for just about anyone who loves Jesus, unless it happens to be a black woman. They're called conservatives for a reason. They ain't gonna make that jump that quick. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 92 Registered: 2-2004 |
SO, your stereotyping is typical. Thats fine though, you can continue to make those type of remarks while the country continues to get redder and redder. The Republicans don't have to do a whole lot except just get out of the way. It's been obvious for quite a while now that the Democratic strategists don't have a clue. Let them go ahead and run, yet again, another northeast liberal. Another recipe for a Republican win no matter who becomes the Republican nominee. Now that Hillary and Dean are running the show I just can't wait for that ticket. Meanwhile, the mid-terms will turn some more congressional seats from blue to red and the Dems will be sitting there once again trying to figure out how the country could be so wrong and MOL will be at least interesting for a few weeks afterward reading all the vents. | ||
| SO Refugee Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 38 Registered: 2-2005 |
OK. You may not want to believe this, but most stereotypes begin with a small nugget of truth. Your name is Southerner, so I'm to assume you're from the south; well, so am I - a reformed fundamentalist who still loves barbecue, college football and NASCAR. I wouldn't base whom I will vote for strictly on gender or race; however, in the rural regions of this country where conservatism is at its strongest, there are still those who are not ready to take that next giant leap. But that's just my humble opinion... | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3403 Registered: 5-2001  |
Southerner is desperate to be believed as someone who is open-minded, intelligent and from the south and that he represents the entire region. it's his analysis or no one's that counts for him - typical southerner.  | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3224 Registered: 8-2003 |
Republicans will nominate and elect a black candidate to the highest office before Democrats do. For all their civil rights chatter, Democrats don't give blacks a leading role. Not at the DNC level, not as a national candidate, not even as a Veep candidate. People speak of racism in the South while completely ignoring the hottest spots of racism in the country like Chicago, Philly, Boston, Detroit, NY and other capitals of The Blue Side. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 514 Registered: 6-2004  |
no doubt. A black Democratic candidate is not electable on the national level. Republicans and their lackeys on talk radio and cable TV would essentially pair that candidate with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the most extreme voices among African Americans, regardless of the candidate's views. With those 2 guys as albatrosses around his neck, no candidate could win the majority of moderate voters. Conversely, a black Republican would have a much better chance. Republican operatives and their media flunkies would preemptively accuse any Democratic critics of racism and hypocrisy. This would of course ignore the real and deep disagreements that Democrats would have with a Republican candidate regardless of his or her race. | ||
| anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 1681 Registered: 6-2002 |
I thought this thread was about State Senator Ron Rice! Condi Rice as president of the US? I guess stranger things have happened but I can't think of one. You folks really believe this county is ready for a women prez? Or a black prez? As to a women, never mind sexist men voters, there are lots of women who would never vote for a woman. There are still lots of folks, not necessarily in the South, who would never vote for a black person. As to the abortion issue, it is a litmus test in the Republican Party.(And in the Dem Party). The Christian Right would bolt if the GOP nominated a pro-choice candidate, and they are the "shock troops" of the Republican Party. Michael Janay posted: "Conservatives may be against abortion, but that is hardly a litmus test. Tough on terror, thats what we want. And most of us realize that ther is little that a president, ANY president, can do WRT abortion." Michael, you are speaking for yourself. The Gary Bauers, Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons and their followers care very little about "terror". They believe that is God's revenge on America for allowing abortion, "gay rights" and other "immorality" and that therefore the answer to terror is to return to "family values" and to pray. They would not even consider you a Conservative. I saw Falwell and the head of the Southern Baptists (Lamm?)on Meet the Press laugh derisively at what they called a "fiscal conservative". | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1366 Registered: 9-2001  |
More to the point, the Christian Right is willing to sit on their hands and not vote/support a pro-choice Republican--even if he is disclaiming abortion rights in order to curry favor. Look at George I--they damned him with, at best, faint praise and certainly gave him no real support. They would rather lose and develop their shock troops in opposition than cave in on this issue. Liberals have no concept of how this works, and I don't see Howard Dean changing this much at all. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3225 Registered: 8-2003 |
Bush The Elder loss in 1992 had nothing to do with abortion issues. He lost because he raised taxes. That's why the conservative base stayed home. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1368 Registered: 9-2001 |
Reagan raised taxes and they still loved him. They never trusted or liked George I. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3226 Registered: 8-2003 |
Reagan's tax hikes - including his kicking the Social Security dilemna down the road a bit in 1983 - were half as large as the tax cuts he put into place. The net with Reagan was a tax cut. Not so with Bush 41, and he violated his pledge on top of that with no kudos from the Democrats to which he caved. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 516 Registered: 6-2004 |
kicking the Social Security dilemma down the road "a bit?" The system will be solvent for a minimum of 35 years after the 1983 revisions, and perhaps as long as 90 years, depending on whose numbers you believe. I think that's more than "a bit." If we can manage that much of a "bit" right now, the system will be solvent for as far as the eye can see. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3227 Registered: 8-2003 |
Just keep raising taxes on fewer and fewer people to make up for the lack of retirement planning at the personal and federal level. | ||
| Debby Citizen Username: Debby Post Number: 1704 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually, nobody is suggesting raising taxes for anybody...the proposal is to remove or minimize an exemption that is only available to high-earners. There's a difference. |
