Even Fox News is running this now. Amazing.

[noiseradio]

If Foxnews is running this, it must be true and then some.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html

[A rope leash]

They're all furiously back-peddaling. I'm telling you, they don't really care about being caught in a lie, because they have no plan to ever give up power.

How about ole Governor Grope? How cynically hypocritical can the Repubs be? I'll bet good old Ronnie Raygun had lots of group sex, too.

Maria said on Oprah, it's okay, becuase she's no saint, either. I guess she's been gang-banged a few times, as well. The Clintons got nothing on these two.

[noiseradio]

It's almost like they're saying, "Yeah, I lied. What of it?"

[A rope leash]

Scary, ain't it?

[bobster]

Thanks for posting this, Noise.

I just sent off a big e-mail to all my liberal cronies (and a few that aren't so liberal). I think it's important to shout this one from the rooftops!

[noiseradio]

And, you know, I'm not a democrat or a republican. I can't stand either party, really. But between Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's "yeah we lied, so what" statements, I'm starting to wish harder and harder that the Dems had someone who was any good to run against Bush. I don't think they've got squat rght now. Same old tired politics from the other side of the well-worn fence. But this was interesting:

" THE QUINNIPIAC University Polling Institute found that Bush outdistanced his rivals by at least 10 points or more in the survey conducted Sept. 11-15.
Bush was favored 52-41 percent over Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, 51-39 percent over Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and 53-38 percent over former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
The president also easily bested two Democrats not in the race — former Vice President Al Gore, Bush’s opponent in 2000, and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Bush was favored 53-41 percent over Gore, and 52-42 percent over the former first lady.
The survey was not all good news for the president. Sixty-seven percent of those polled said the economy will matter more to them than the U.S.-led war against Iraq when they go to the voting booth in November 2004.
Fifty percent of those surveyed disapprove of the way Bush has handled the economy, while 44 percent approve. Voters, by a 49-42 percent margin, said that a Democratic administration would do a better job.
Those polled supported the war 58-37 percent, but they are evenly split on the $87 billion price tag."

(Source: msnbc.com)

What this means to me is that most people want someone else to be president, but none of the current opponents are the people's choice. They don't, for the most part, approve of his policies, and they want someone to present a cohesive, practical alternative. I hope the dems are paying attention.

Actually I hope the Greens or the Libertarians are paying attention, but barring a miracle, their opinion doesn't matter much to the rest of the world.

[A rope leash]

What do you think of this Wesley Clark guy?

[noiseradio]

I don't know enough yet to comment. I'm certainly intrigued.

[El Vez]

My favorite analogy came from an editorial I read a few months ago where the writer bemoaned the fact that there seem to be no chess players in the current administration. Chess players, the writer argued, are profoundly sensitive to the ramifications of their actions and are very careful in making big choices because they understand that there will be long term repercussions. By comparison, the Bush administration likes to play Battleship and cheat.

[laughingcrow]

I just watched a thing on BBC4 about Wes Clark... they were saying that he doesn't stand much chance of being elected as runner due to having no experience in anything but blowing up towns in the Balkans and East Asia.

It seems to me that he's the Republican answer to the big feeling ofvulnerability that there seems to be in the US....He'll shoot you, but he'll make sure he's got enough backing first!

Always dubious about letting a military man run a country though...he says he opposes the tactics Bush used in the war, that it should have been with more international backing, but he doesn't say that he disagrees with the war.
Whoever goes in to the white house next, I think it's inevitable the world is in for a few more years of turmoil out in the middle east.

[Copenhagen Fan]

Hey Rope...in all seriousness, what's wrong with gang bangs ???

[A rope leash]

It wasn't until Rome fell into full decadence that it began to crumble. The multiple relationships in an orgy do a lot to objectify the humans participating.

As long as there's no rape involved, I don't have any real problem with it, but then again, apparently I'm an amoralisitc dog. But there can be no doubt that this behavior can have a tremendous emotional impact, as all sex is a far more emotional event than some people give it credit for.

There's been a couple of times in my life that, if I had been a different person, I could have participated in group sex. As far as gang-banging, that's what dogs do, and I'm more of a crazy-mixed-up-half-dog-half-human kind of thing. I prefer the serial-monagamy path to greater sexual enlightenment.

That doesn't mean I have a small penis. It means that I follow my innate sense of what is right for me. You have to feel good about yourself.

Arnold is a Republican tool, but he will have to admit to being morally corrupt in his past sexual endeavours, and I just don't see how the conservative far-right can support him.

[noiseradio]

I'm asking nicely. Can we elevate this discussion back above the waist, please. I'm at work, and this is a thread about politics.

[pophead2k]

I agree with Noise, let's keep it above the waist. Anyone seen the new cover of Rolling Stone?

[A rope leash]

So, you don't care about the sex life of your politicans?

Every candidate for office has to be a God-fearing, straight-laced herterosexual, or he doesn't have a chance in most parts of the country. Why should Arnold get a pass on this one? Because he's lived the life of a Hollywood "superstar", and it's expected?

I speak for poor old Billy Clinton. Everybody has sex. It's either official business, or it isn't. We can't let these Repubs have it both ways.

[pophead2k]

Actually Rope, I agree with you- I was just trying to have a little fun at Noise's expense and to tie in my favorite board topic: Britney.

[noiseradio]

I was, of course, referring to the comment by Cope Fan. I think that Arnold should get no better pass on this than anyone else gets. Didn't mean to avoid your question, Rope.

[bobster]

Well, getting back to the above the waist national news. (Frankly, Californian though I am, this whole election is sort of depressing.)

I personally am supporting Howard Dean and am even contemplating getting involved with his campaign. Dean's actually a little conservative for my taste -- despite those idiots who persist in painting him as some kind of super-liberal McGovernite (who wasn't nearly as "out-there" as conservatives would have you believe and is a great man who would have been a wonderful President, I think). Dean is more like Jimmy Carter -- a truely compassionate conservative.

The only semi-semi-viable real progressive is Dennis Kucinich, but he's actually fairly far to my left on some issues, taking some positions I think are downright loony. And if I think that, God knows what Joe Six-Pack would make of him. (He's also soft on pro-choice, which makes him unelectable even by most liberal democrats.) Al Sharpton has a better chance!

Therefore Dean, I think, by far the best we're likely to get right now. Just on the issues of war and healthcare alone, I think Dean would be a GIANT improvement, far better than Clinton. Still, he's a bit stiff and has some odd mannerisms that worry me.

The other problem is that, whoever wins is going to have persuade people that he can do a better job than the other guy at protecting the country. So that's why Clark -- who's been portrayed as everything from a Clinton-style democrat (i.e., a very moderate Republican) to a Truman style Democrat (i.e., a warlike moderate liberal). Again, that would be an improvement and the far right, who call themselves "mainstream conservatives," won't be able to label him as either unpatriotic OR inexperienced.

So, my personal dream ticket is Dean and Clark, in that order. That way, Clark could lend his "experience" on Foreign Affairs at least in terms of perception.

If Clark surges ahead -- which I think is very likely -- and doesn't flame out in some odd way (also somewhat likley) I'll look at him again. Right now, as disgusted as I am with the control of the Democratic Leadership Council on the party, the first priority is to get Bush out. These people are beyond revolting.

Re: the Greens -- I have some hope for them, but at least in California they're largely dominated by a sort vegan/animal rights/conspiracy theory/ultra-politically correct mentality that justifiably relegates them to the margins. They should be concentrating on getting into small local offices to build a base, rather than screwing up big elections. (I say this as someone who voted for Nader -- though I knew Gore had California sewn up. I was so angry at the Dems back then, I have no idea what I would have done had the election been closer here. Probably Gore, but I would have hated myself for being a big chicken.)

Re: the Libertarians. As far as I can tell, they're just Republicans who think it's okay to smoke dope or be gay. Who cares if I have those rights if giant mega-corporations are allowed to control every aspect of my daily life? (Including selling me the dope.)

[HungupStrungup]

You make some good points, Mr. Ster, and maybe when I have the time I'll respond to some more of them, but right now, re this:

Re: the Greens -- . . . . they should be concentrating on getting into small local offices to build a base, rather than screwing up big elections. (I say this as someone who voted for Nader -- though I knew Gore had California sewn up. I was so angry at the Dems back then, I have no idea what I would have done had the election been closer here. Probably Gore, but I would have hated myself for being a big chicken.)

As you imply, the only justification for voting for Nader or any Green for President is if your state is not in play. In 2000, with California solidly for Gore, your Nader vote was safe. Had you lived in Texas, your Nader vote would have been equally safe, since W could not lose his home state. However, if I were a Florida or New Hampshire voter whose vote for Nader helped put this crowd in power, I'd have to commit seppuku.

(I'm about 90% sure I'm right about New Hampshire, and if not there are three or four other states I can't name at the moment in which Nader's intransigence made the difference. I used to like the man, but now I hate him with a white-hot passion.)

With the Electoral College in place, the Greens, or any serious third party, must concentrate on local, state and congressional elections where pluralities carry the day. In the Presidential sweepstakes, the best outcome (using the term advisedly) the Greens could have hoped for in 2000 was to win a state or two, deny an Electoral majority and throw the election to the House of Representatives. SSDD.