It Fitzmass Nixon's final triumph?

I have been watching this Palme case with a lot of unease lately. I am wondering if we haven't put ourselves into a wrong box here. Not becasue this is unimportant, but because it seems to be about personality, rather than any real policy.

I have been wondering if Watergate hasn't become the Democrat's Waterloo. Think over it. Before, Democrats were on the march. Even Nixon had to admit that the best he could achieve during his term was a rear guard action, he wasn't the great white hope of ultimate victory, like Goldwater and Reagan, but the last best chance before total defeat.

Ok, so Nixon got caught with his hands in the cookie jar. Good job all around, lots of kudos to all involved. But Watergate moved the Democrats from the mode of discussing policy the the mode of "Gotcha" for any Republican in their way. Reagan discussed policy differences, the Democrats responded with investigating an aids getting the gift of watches. Bush discussed trade, the Democrats responded with Iran Contra.

Of course, the Republicans did this kind of thing too. Remember Monica? She cost them the Senate and several house seets, plus their most articulate leader ever. What did she gain them? Laughter.

Right now the Republlicans are talking taxes, making their case for Democracy in Iraq, Social Security, all stuff that people want to argue over. the Republicans are doing the arguing. People aren't buying much of it, but they are on message and putting ouj the message.

Where are we? Back in the Grand Jury room, discussing the minute of what constitutes lying to a prosecutor. Nobody has said anything about indicting anyone for the actual leak yet. And the R's are maintiaining that it wasn't a leak if everyone knew about it. Face it, even for a wonk, the details are boing enough to make your head spin. The average voter is looking at this and ansking if we are serious about this.

You want votes? Discuss health care. Discuss oil prices. Discus taxes. Discuss social security. These things are relavent and are hot buttons with every voter.

You want to loose votes? Indulge in wonkish vendettas agianst minor players on the other side. At best you bore the voter, at worst you annoy them by making them think you don't care about what is important for them. And the shade of Nixon will laugh at you as he leans on his shovel in the very warm place he is now.

:popcorn:

:popcorn:

:popcorn:

actual leak yet because "Scooter" Libby took the grand jury on a wild goose chase that effectively obstructed justice. That was his job. He succeeded in doing so, but only temporarily.

That is why he was indicted. This case is not over yet.

The goal is growth in Democratic numbers, What works, what doesn't. From my perspective, this perpetual scandal stuff is toxic.

First of all, this case is being handled by a non-partisan special prosecutor, not the Democrats. A vendetta? Wha??

Second, this 'wonkish vendetta' is about what drove our nation to war, costing billions upon billions of dollars, thousands of US lives, and well over 100,000 Iraqi lives. It has everything to do with our current foreign policy and our national security, and NOTHING to do with 'personality'.

Those billions of dollars are unavailable for things like health care and social security thanks to these 'minor players on the other side' and their deceitful, anti-american actions.

Peace.

It is empty suits arguing about air in DC. The effects are obscured by all the hot air. it is not "We need this and this is why" it is Neeneer neeneer neeneer. which even when done witht he highest justification is stull unlovely.

maybe you should focus on hobbies other than politics. If the outing of the most corrupt administration in recent history isn't of importance to you, I can't imagine how anything political possibly could be :shrug:

Peace

The purpose of a political organization is not impeachment and prosecution of people with different ideas. Prosecutors deal with crimes, The purpose of a political organization is to put forward ideas and change policy. Changes in personnel make for changes in policy, true, but for five years all the people of America have been hearing from the Democratic leadership is "The Republicans are evil bad guys." BFHD.
There have been two elections. The Republicans have gained in each. The message "Republicans are 3V1L bad guys" won't work. It is zero for 2. The message that works is "This is who we are and this is what we will do for you...." that wins elections. That is what won elections from 1930 to 1980. "We care. This is what we will do for you." That wins. "Libby is indicted!" Is that a slogan for victory?

rude. Do you really think I am going to waste my time reading past your subject line?

Maybe someday when you learn how to have a reasonable conversation, we can discuss this very important issue.

Peace.

what more is there to say. At this point, I have written you off. Maybe somebody else will pay attention.

Anyway, this goes to the main question of what the Democratic party is going to be in the future. A group that wins victories for America, or a group that mourns their losses election after election.

Keep your fingers in your ears if you want. Totaly up to you.

For the record, this forum is the 'CIA Leak Case Forum'. Everything in this forum is related to that. There are many other forums on DU where other topics are being discussed, including goals for the Dem party. See, lots of people can concentrate on more than one issue at a time, and recognize that they are all important.

You never responded to any of the points in my original reply to your thread.

I think our conversation ended at that point. And feel free to write me off. I enjoy reasonable discourse, not argumentative attempts to push buttons.

Peace.

Hope we won't "loose" your vote!

There probably wouldn't be so many legal proceedings against those "on message" repubs if they didn't insist on COMMITTING SO MANY FUCKING CRIMES!

And wrecking the country.

Hope we won't "loose" your vote!

:rofl:

or actually policy differences.?

The way to win elections is bringing ideas to the voters that they like. They will vote for ideas. Pointing fingers at each other just lowers the turnout through scandal burnout. And Democrats can't let the turnout go down.

"Scooter" Libby obstructed justice in the investigation of that crime.

That is hardly what I'd call "pointing fingers."

The issue I am bringing up is not that Libby is innocent or guilty. The jury will determine that later. I am saying we are so involved in this we are forgetting what wins votes.

Ok, Libby is as guilty as sin. Lets put him in the galleys. Row Scooter Row.

Wow, that moved the agenda forward a lot didn't it? Putting A special assistant to the Vice president in jail eliminated poverty and made health care affordable. Now on to other triumphs.

Honestly, this doesn't move me. And I live and breathe this stuff. What do you think it is going to do for the average voter?

Tell me, Democrat, what are you going to do about my school?

About the fact my health insurance went up 22% this year?

About the fact the company I work for moved half their production to Costa Rica?

Is the answer to all this "We sent an empty to suit to some countlry club jail?" Will that win elections?

If you aren't familiar with the term, please look it up.

Ther are X resources, so many hours in a day, so much effort to be expeneded.

And remember, how does the average voter feel about this kind of thing. This constant trading of indictments, impeachments and finger pointing drives down their interest. Nothing in it for them.

So, do you continue with the activity that is toxic, or change to something productive.

Feel free to choose.

We won in my county last fall by increasing voter turnout. We accomplished that by registering tens of thousands of new voters and having a well-organized strategy for actually getting them to the polls. And the fact that some of the repubs had their fingers in Tom DeLay's cookie jar did nothing to hurt us.

And next year we're going to do it again.

who are REALLY bad spellers and have bad grammar?

:rofl:

Is that what you're getting at?

"You want votes? Discuss health care. Discuss oil prices. Discus taxes. Discuss social security. These things are relavent and are hot buttons with every voter." Bush has not been discussing innovative programs to enhanve or fix these problems, but rather programs to eliminate them. His answer to healthcare can be seen in the current budget cuts. He has no viable energy program. He just want to cut taxes for the rich and for corporations. His social security proposal was just a ruse to ultimately dismantle it entirely. People need to wake up to just how dangerous this president is. Health problems, deficits and poverty will just become more pervasive under Bush.

What do you thing we've been talking about since 2000. WE were right all along too.

But it's only been the last couple of weeks that, little by little such things are being discussed openly by the press.

I think it's a concentrated secret effort to sell the war in the first place, to defeat or lessen the impact of anti-war efforts and to misdirect public attention.

The Office of Strategic Influence, or OSI, was a department set up in the United States Department of Defense in late 2001 or early 2002, to support the War on Terrorism through psychological operations in targeted countries. The closure of the office was announced by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld soon after its existence became publicly known.

The OSI would have been a center for the creation of propaganda materials, for the stated purpose of misleading enemy forces or their civilian populations. After information on the office spread through US and foreign media in mid February 2002, intense discussions on purpose and scope of the office were reported. The discussions culminated in a public statement by Rumsfeld in late February that the office has been closed down.

Some argue that due to its nature and stated purpose, the (non-)existence of such an agency would be hard to determine. In fact, in November 2002, Rumsfeld stated in an interview that only the name of the office was abolished, that it further exists and that it fulfills its original purpose. MORE...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Strategic_Influence

the democrats HAVE been talking about these issues. Where have you been? The statement that Harry Reid put out was a perfect response.

I must have been fishing.

"The Office of Strategic Influence, or OSI, was a department set up in the United States Department of Defense in late 2001 or early 2002," ...

We know now, or very strongly suspect now, that the PNAC/Rumbo, wanted to invade Iraq as far back as 1998.

"to support the War on Terrorism through psychological operations in targeted countries."...

Was the United states one of the countries they wanted to target for these operations?

"The OSI would have been a center for the creation of propaganda materials, for the stated purpose of misleading enemy forces or their civilian populations."...

Was the anti-war movement in the US a threat to the PNAC plan, so therefore looked upon as an enemy by the PNAC? Are we not the civilian population, who are speaking out against the war, and have we not spoken out against it since the day the idea to invade Iraq became public information?

"After information on the office spread through US and foreign media in mid February 2002, intense discussions on purpose and scope of the office were reported."

The public and congress wanted to know about this operation since they were funding it through the DoD budget. That DoD came up missing 8 billion dollars about the time this thing was known to be operating. Could part of the missing money still be funding operations such as, The Office of Strategic Influence and other secret operations like the private soldiers and Intel people on the ground in Iraq? The reason the funding would be hidden, would be to avoid congressional oversight, or any regulation or input by congress?

"The closure of the office was announced by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld soon after its existence became publicly known."...

An effort to stop further congressional probes? We know the neocons lied to start a war, can we REALLY trust them on this promise to stop this shadowy effort?

"The OSI would have been a center for the creation of propaganda materials, for the stated purpose of misleading enemy forces or their civilian populations."

Propaganda materials like the selling of a war using fake information, planted in newspapers like the New York Times or in the TV and Radio's sphere of Influence?

"Some argue that due to its nature and stated purpose, the (non-)existence of such an agency would be hard to determine."...

Almost impossible to detect I'd think, unless it came out in something like the Plame investigation.

"In fact, in November 2002, Rumsfeld stated in an interview that only the name of the office was abolished, that it further exists and that it fulfills its original purpose."

Rumbo even admits that this thing was still in operation.

GESTAPO 101?

Tricky Dick been whispering in your ear again has he?

Pulling up a comfy chair for my :popcorn:

comes off as awfully presumptious. Nobody elected YOU a spokesman for anything but your own bad opinions.

and I am asking what is being done for all of us in this matter. Not just little ol' me.




Now get busy knave and fetch me my pipe, my bowl and my fiddlers three.

to this.

At the moment, it only exists as a gradually expanding proposal, a few sample segments, and a working title (which may be the subhead of the finished book once a snappier title has been found): The Nixonisation of American Politics.

His thesis differs from your, but it covers the same themes.