Re: Bush video

[Guest guest]

Howdy Ken;

It's just that the news does seem to grab on to the moral questions rather

quickly doesn't it.

We're treated like children by the media and the religious right. The media

only prints/airs what it believes will catch and maintain our interest. On

the political side it more often than not has a decided DC beltway

mentality. They presume because it's an important issue in DC it's

important across the country. I couldn't tell you how wrong they are the

majority of the time. Well considering you brought the issue up perhaps we

already agree on it.

The religious right believes we're all errant children and are currently

intent on legislating us into being good Christians. We're all on Dr.

Dobson's Heaven Bound program via the DJD Highway whether or not the I1

(individual one) is a faster route and personally preferable route to take.

He and others like him have a heck of allot of people thinking that return

to more religious, god fearing, life styles will eradicate all of this

country's ills. As a result a lot of people tend to judge the worthiness of

a candidate not only on his policies but on a moral fitness scale which

indicates the candidates ability to bring this country online with the

religious rights efforts to purify our ills. What disgusts me is that the

religious right invariably uses fear to get what it wants. " Sure the

country is doing great under Clinton but we're still headed to hell so we

can't afford not to change. "

I was in a discussion over this issue just the other day. What it boiled

down to was that neither one of us gave a rat's backside whether he got an

OUI, or that he used his power to avoid mandatory treatment. After all

people are expected to use power prestige and authority whenever possible to

aid themselves. It's really no different then you or I getting out of

paying a speeding ticket because we knew someone who could fix it for us.

What did it for us is that, as the candidate that purports to be on the

moral road he lied about his last drink and the excuse he gave for not being

more forth coming in the first place was.... well it amazed us. He claims

that he didn't bring it up because he didn't want his daughters drinking and

driving. How pathetic. As a candidate for president in an election year

that OUI had a 100% chance of being brought to public attention and he was

too much of a coward to tell the public about it on the off chance that his

daughters might drink and drive. It makes no sense at all. If he's that

willing to use his family, to avoid responsibility like that what use would

he be as a president?

So yes I've made a moral judgment call there but that wasn't the primary

judgment against him/his stated policies it was one of many. Compared to

Gore he seemed like a moron during the debates. His evasions on health and

education policy questions for the state of Texas were pretty telling.

Most people need to be spoon fed the issues. As I went to vote today there

was an amendment up for vote, which the legislature managed to sneak in. It

would disallow certain tax exemptions. The wording was such that I know

most of the people in line to vote had no clue what they were voting for or

against. I actually had to explain it to a few of the people around me.

The amendment received absolutely no press coverage and in terms of fiscal

impact it was the most important amendment being voted on.

What was covered were the Bush moral questions. So in a sense I think the

major parties know that most Americans don't know what the issues are, or if

they do only in a very generalized way. Nor do they know the personal

records of the individual candidates but if they can show the other guy is a

bad guy then hopefully they will have dissuaded someone from voting for

them.

So we end up with moral pot shots being taken on the evening news or front

page on the paper. It's easier to understand that than to come to grips

with where either party stands on a myriad of complex issues.

> Re: Bush video

>

>Wally,

>

>In Winston Churchill's time, it wouldn't have been necessary to meet the

>yardstick of Absolute Abstinence because that wasn't seen as particularly

>relevant.

>

[Guest guest]

ken,

i really dont care if he was really buzzed or not. he looked like he

was having a good time, and was fairly entertaining. but he has

gone the

record saying he quit drinking in 1986 and has abstained ever

since. even then i barley care at the dishonesty. its quite

irrelevant in larger

scheme of things.

but this is from a man whose party preaches abstaining as a

righteous principle in life practically, and has dogged the clinton

administration for

every contradiction in personal behavior and public disclosure

for political gain and used it as examples of lack of fitness for 8

years.

for him to cry, when the same scrutiny is applied back at him,

seems like, well... whining.

not to mention, if he claims he hasn't drank since 86 but did in

92, what does he have to hide? afterall, he has made that an

issue himself by

claiming it as a sign of character. but wait, he wasn't being

honest! isn't that also a sign of character? he wants it both ways

as much as would

accuse gore of same.

how is that any different from him chastising gore for taking

credit for things he never accomplished solo? or waffling? this

is battle of public

perception, i wont cry for bush when the tools the republicans

perfected, are used back at them.

dave

[Guest guest]

> I just find it difficult to imagine how we've come from respecting

> Winston Churchill for what he did and represented in spite of

apparently

> very drunken binges and yet what Bush did at the wedding is

considered

> something so terrible he has to lie about it.

also, i dont think most people what he did would be seen as so

terriable he had to lie about it. i dispise the bush and

repbulicans, and i found him rather likable in video. it would

probably gone over well with most people. i have seen far worse

on americas funniest videos, nor have even heard this video

mentioned in media at all or when he made his claim. so if he is

lying, he is lying for his own reasons and political gain, not

becuase of pressure to being put on him over this video.

[Guest guest]

Winston Churchill never claimed to have been 'absolutely dry' for 15 years.

Of course there is nothing wrong with citizen W. Bush getting zonked

at a wedding. But lets face it, the man is mentally retarded, a pawn of big

business and the far right, and a liar. His presidency would (will) mean

another 4 years of bullshit non-leadership. What's the point of saying

anything in his favor?

-- wally

Bush video

> Hello everyone,

>

> I just saw the Bush video and, issues of Bushes fitness for office and

> issues of contradicting what he has said in public, does anyone else see

> nothing inherently wrong with him getting buzzed, maybe even really

> buzzed, at the wedding?

>

> I just find it difficult to imagine how we've come from respecting

> Winston Churchill for what he did and represented in spite of apparently

> very drunken binges and yet what Bush did at the wedding is considered

> something so terrible he has to lie about it.

>

> What have we come to in this country?

>

> Ken Ragge

>

[Guest guest]

ah ditto for Gore

Bush video> Hello everyone,>> I just saw the Bush video and, issues of Bushes fitness for office and> issues of contradicting what he has said in public, does anyone else see> nothing inherently wrong with him getting buzzed, maybe even really> buzzed, at the wedding?>> I just find it difficult to imagine how we've come from respecting> Winston Churchill for what he did and represented in spite of apparently> very drunken binges and yet what Bush did at the wedding is considered> something so terrible he has to lie about it.>> What have we come to in this country?>> Ken Ragge>

[Guest guest]

"You sir, are drunk."

-a woman

"Yes. But you, madam, are ugly, and I shall be sober in the morning"

-Winston Churchill

Re: Bush video

> I just find it difficult to imagine how we've come from respecting> Winston Churchill for what he did and represented in spite of apparently> very drunken binges and yet what Bush did at the wedding is considered> something so terrible he has to lie about it.also, i dont think most people what he did would be seen as so terriable he had to lie about it. i dispise the bush and repbulicans, and i found him rather likable in video. it would probably gone over well with most people. i have seen far worse on americas funniest videos, nor have even heard this video mentioned in media at all or when he made his claim. so if he is lying, he is lying for his own reasons and political gain, not becuase of pressure to being put on him over this video.

[Guest guest]

> I just find it difficult to imagine how we've come from respecting

> Winston Churchill for what he did and represented in spite of

apparently

> very drunken binges and yet what Bush did at the wedding is

considered

> something so terrible he has to lie about it.

>

> What have we come to in this country?

I think he's covering it up or lying about it or whatever (but I can't

accuse him of a cover up when I have not heard of the video outside

12sf) because people are swayed by the idea that politicians and cops

and health care providers--authority figures in general--should be

better than other human beings. Same reason Clinton said he never

inhaled, and denied having sex with Lewinsky. People lie about

sex and drugs; that doesn't change when they assume positions of

power.

I liked what Diener was saying, about placing addiction/

dependency and suicide within a larger social context. I interpreted

that to mean, look less at individual behavior, and look more toward

social/ political/ family processes and structures that lead to these

risky behaviors. I think the fact that we (generally) hold people in

positions of power to a higher standard of behavior than others plays

into attitudes about drugs and sex in general. I don't exactly know

how but that doesn't stop me from conjecturing.

howsabout this...I think I try to split myself into a " good " part and

a " bad " part. I try to be good rather than bad. But the harder I try

to be good by rigid external standards, the more I worry; the less

able I am to hear the music of chance fortune orchestrating my steps

throughout the day.

I'm not equating bad behavior with joy... well maybe I am. My

thoughts in this area are strongly influenced by a good book called

The Guru Papers, recommended by Kimrh. There's a chapter called " Who

is in Control? The Authoritarian Roots of Addiction. " Subheads in the

chapter follow:

What is Addiction?

The Divided Psyche: Symptom of a Dysfunctional Morality

Taming the Beast: The Inner Battle for Control

Addiction as Revolt against the Inner Authoritarian

The Failings of Disease and Responsibility Models

Twelve Steps to Where?

Developing Wholeness and Self-Trust

judith

[Guest guest]

It isn't the DWI, it is the hypocrisy.

Bush video

> Hello everyone,

>

> I just saw the Bush video and, issues of Bushes fitness for office and

> issues of contradicting what he has said in public, does anyone else see

> nothing inherently wrong with him getting buzzed, maybe even really

> buzzed, at the wedding?

>

> I just find it difficult to imagine how we've come from respecting

> Winston Churchill for what he did and represented in spite of apparently

> very drunken binges and yet what Bush did at the wedding is considered

> something so terrible he has to lie about it.

>

> What have we come to in this country?

>

> Ken Ragge

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken;

You've opened yourself up to my favorite Chrchill story.

During WWII at a cabinet meeting his finance minister said

" Winston you're drunk! " The reply " Yes and you're ugly, but

tomorrow I'll be sober. "

However GW Bush scares the hell out of me, so my vote goes to

Al Gore.

I do agree that many private things, like drinking at a wedding

ought to remain private. Actually getting a bit drunk at a wedding

is pretty traditional.

Might be better to ask, how has his educational policy faired in

Texas. During his governorship Texas has dropped from 22nd to

49th in education, while Iowa under two different governors has

maintained the #2 spot. That was one republican governor and the

present Democrat.

Many of us democrats crossed over and voted for Terry Brandstad

in years gone bye, just because he heavily funded education and

tried to eliminate social promotion.

Like you I believe we ought to stick to the really important stuff,

there's plenty of room for debate in that area, without trying to

decide it's wrong to have some chamagne at a wedding.

[Guest guest]

> " You sir, are drunk. "

> -a woman

> " Yes. But you, madam, are ugly, and I shall be sober in the

morning "

> -Winston Churchill

" You, sir, are drunk, and just hoovered up more fine Bolivian powder

than Love. " - woman in 1993

" Yeah, but seven years from now, the right wingers will be so

desperate to get a Republican into the White House, they'll believe

me if I tell them I'm a virgin. " -- GW Bush

[Guest guest]

Dave Marcoot wrote:

> ken,

> i really dont care if he was really buzzed or not. he looked like he

> was having a good time, and was fairly entertaining. but he has

> gone the

> record saying he quit drinking in 1986 and has abstained ever

> since. even then i barley care at the dishonesty. its quite

> irrelevant in larger

> scheme of things.

>

> but this is from a man whose party preaches abstaining as a

> righteous principle in life practically, and has dogged the clinton

> administration for

> every contradiction in personal behavior and public disclosure

> for political gain and used it as examples of lack of fitness for 8

> years.

>

> for him to cry, when the same scrutiny is applied back at him,

> seems like, well... whining.

>

> not to mention, if he claims he hasn't drank since 86 but did in

> 92, what does he have to hide? afterall, he has made that an

> issue himself by

> claiming it as a sign of character. but wait, he wasn't being

> honest! isn't that also a sign of character? he wants it both ways

> as much as would

> accuse gore of same.

> how is that any different from him chastising gore for taking

> credit for things he never accomplished solo? or waffling? this

> is battle of public

> perception, i wont cry for bush when the tools the republicans

> perfected, are used back at them.

>

> dave

Dave,

But I cry simply that the tools are used, that empty image is used to

influence public perception. If the level of discussion of politics

occuring now was prevalent 55 years ago, the headlines on VJ day would have

been, " Eleanor rumored to have . . . " and, somewhere around page 47, bottom

of the page, " Japan surrenders " with the focus of the coverage on how that

may be used in influence opinion in the Eleanor issue. OK, I exaggerate.

But that's my general point.

None of this nonsense is relevant to the economy, education, health care,

protecting civil liberties, crime, taxes, etc., etc., etc. But that is what

national elections have come to be about.

That is what I'm referring to. Who cares about cigars and martinis when

there are big, important issues to be discussed and decided? It seems that

is where most everyones' attention is, on trivial nonsense.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

wally wrote:

> Winston Churchill never claimed to have been 'absolutely dry' for 15 years.

> Of course there is nothing wrong with citizen W. Bush getting zonked

> at a wedding. But lets face it, the man is mentally retarded, a pawn of big

> business and the far right, and a liar. His presidency would (will) mean

> another 4 years of bullshit non-leadership. What's the point of saying

> anything in his favor?

>

> -- wally

Wally,

In Winston Churchill's time, it wouldn't have been necessary to meet the

yardstick of Absolute Abstinence because that wasn't seen as particularly

relevant.

I would argue with you on " mentally retarded. " It is my understanding he has

dyslexia, which is something far different and usually occurs with compensating

mental facilities. The rest, sure. But isn't the rest what we, as an

electorate, should be talking about?

As you note, Bush has _plenty_ of flaws as a Presidential candidate. Aren't

they the ones we should be talking about, what the election should be decided

on? And the same goes for Clinton. Should this or that piece of legislation

be supported based on its own merit or is the cigar somehow more important,

more of a deciding factor than his positions on matters of state?

Doesn't it seem a little odd that who the next President is going to be is so

heavily based on how well one candidate can distance himself from Clinton's

cigar which has nothing to do with pressing matters of state and the other on

how well he can distance himself from misbehavior 25 years before which has

nothing to do with pressing matters of state? Doesn't this seem wrong to you?

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

I voted for Harry Browne. My SO probably voted for Bush as being the

lesser of the evil even though she is basically a libertarian like

me. She dislikes Bush but correctly percieves a Gore presidency as

being beyond decency. I find this talk about Bush very amusing-- his

opponent(the media does not allow us to listen to subversive

candidates and parties) is a pathological liar and learned the finer

point of the big lie from his boss. Both are sons of power and

priviledge and sleep in bed with special interests. The really scary

thing, to me, is that Gore may win. There is a good article by reason

magazine that talkes about the new presidential politics:

http://www.reason.com/

" The New Presidential Identity " Its a link from the main page. There

is an article by Stanton Peele as well.

Jim

[Guest guest]

>

> > Winston Churchill never claimed to have been 'absolutely dry' for

15 years.

And he only put his cigar between his fingers!

P.

[Guest guest]

Judith Stillwater wrote:

>

>

> > I just find it difficult to imagine how we've come from respecting

> > Winston Churchill for what he did and represented in spite of

> apparently

> > very drunken binges and yet what Bush did at the wedding is

> considered

> > something so terrible he has to lie about it.

> >

> > What have we come to in this country?

>

> I think he's covering it up or lying about it or whatever (but I can't

> accuse him of a cover up when I have not heard of the video outside

> 12sf) because people are swayed by the idea that politicians and cops

> and health care providers--authority figures in general--should be

> better than other human beings. Same reason Clinton said he never

> inhaled, and denied having sex with Lewinsky. People lie about

> sex and drugs; that doesn't change when they assume positions of

> power.

Judith,

Perhaps I'm suffering " euphoric recall " but it seems that, whatever flaws

the media had, this type of story was relegated to outlets like the Enquirer

and Globe.

I keep going back in my mind to something I heard decades ago, something

about totalitarian governments have strict enough laws covering enough

things that _everyone_ is in violation in one way or another, so authority

can simply pick and choose who to enforce the law on. No one is safe.

While I don't worry much about political leaders, they seem to be able to

take care of themselves, what about the rest of us? We all seem to be

jumping on the bandwagon and if it is okay to judge Clinton on what Bill and

Hillary should be judging privately between themselves and okay to judge

Bush on something that in and of itself is nothing wrong, where do the rest

of us stand?

>

>

> I liked what Diener was saying, about placing addiction/

> dependency and suicide within a larger social context. I interpreted

> that to mean, look less at individual behavior, and look more toward

> social/ political/ family processes and structures that lead to these

> risky behaviors. I think the fact that we (generally) hold people in

> positions of power to a higher standard of behavior than others plays

> into attitudes about drugs and sex in general. I don't exactly know

> how but that doesn't stop me from conjecturing.

>

I'm wondering if we really are holding them separately to " higher " standards

anymore. I suspect _everyone_ is guilty now.

>

> howsabout this...I think I try to split myself into a " good " part and

> a " bad " part. I try to be good rather than bad. But the harder I try

> to be good by rigid external standards, the more I worry; the less

> able I am to hear the music of chance fortune orchestrating my steps

> throughout the day.

>

To my way of thinking, dead right on there.

>

> I'm not equating bad behavior with joy... well maybe I am. My

> thoughts in this area are strongly influenced by a good book called

> The Guru Papers, recommended by Kimrh. There's a chapter called " Who

> is in Control? The Authoritarian Roots of Addiction. " Subheads in the

> chapter follow:

>

Sort of a damned if you acquiesce and damned if you rebel, no?

>

> What is Addiction?

> The Divided Psyche: Symptom of a Dysfunctional Morality

> Taming the Beast: The Inner Battle for Control

> Addiction as Revolt against the Inner Authoritarian

> The Failings of Disease and Responsibility Models

> Twelve Steps to Where?

> Developing Wholeness and Self-Trust

>

Sounds like a great addition to my reading list. Thanks.

Ken Ragge

>

> judith

[Guest guest]

Jim,

The really scary thing for me is that BUSH may win. At least Gore has

some brains for one thing. He's also anti-death penalty, which means

he might buck " popular wisdom " on other things too.

Youve got Govt backed steppism already; you want Govt backed Xtianity

as well?

I will tone down a previous Americanophobic quip of mine to say that

this is a choice between the Conservatives and the

Ultra-Conservatives - take the lesser of two evils, please!

P.

> I voted for Harry Browne. My SO probably voted for Bush as being the

> lesser of the evil even though she is basically a libertarian like

> me. She dislikes Bush but correctly percieves a Gore presidency as

> being beyond decency. I find this talk about Bush very amusing-- his

> opponent(the media does not allow us to listen to subversive

> candidates and parties) is a pathological liar and learned the finer

> point of the big lie from his boss. Both are sons of power and

> priviledge and sleep in bed with special interests. The really scary

> thing, to me, is that Gore may win. There is a good article by

reason

> magazine that talkes about the new presidential politics:

>

> http://www.reason.com/

>

> " The New Presidential Identity " Its a link from the main page. There

> is an article by Stanton Peele as well.

>

> Jim

[Guest guest]

watts_pete@... wrote:

> Jim,

>

> The really scary thing for me is that BUSH may win. At least Gore has

> some brains for one thing. He's also anti-death penalty, which means

> he might buck " popular wisdom " on other things too.

>

> Youve got Govt backed steppism already; you want Govt backed Xtianity

> as well?

>

> I will tone down a previous Americanophobic quip of mine to say that

> this is a choice between the Conservatives and the

> Ultra-Conservatives - take the lesser of two evils, please!

>

> P.

Pete,

The thing with government backed Christianity is that we can see it and

challenge it. If they start coercing one to two million people a year into

Fundamentalist groups, it is something that everyone will see and it will be

possible to challenge it. With the Step groups, they are, for all practical

purposes invisible and very difficult to challenge.

Here, even the atheist organizations and Libertarians don't get their

hackles up over the Step groups, whereas coerced Christianity would get a

large percentage of Christians riled.

This is not an argument for Bush. I'm just trying to see a _little_ glimmer

of hope _somewhere_ on the political scene.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

Yardsticks vary by time and place. Would Winston's tippling not have been an

issue if he had been running for President of the USA in, say, 1920?

Generally I agree that a candidate's private life really shouldn't be made a

public issue. One exception occurs when a candidate makes personal morality

an issue. Then it is entirely appropriate to point out that he is a

hypocrite, if indeed he is.

Of course, in practice, American Democracy without scandal-mongering is a

utopian fantasy. Does it seem wrong? Of course. Can anything be done about

it? Probably not. I've read any number of op-ed pieces in which the

exasperated journalist expresses his or her frustration over the fact that

the public doesn't seem to care much about things that actually matter, but

does seem to be fascinated with scandalous trivia.

--wally

Re: Bush video

> wally wrote:

>

> > Winston Churchill never claimed to have been 'absolutely dry' for 15

years.

> > Of course there is nothing wrong with citizen W. Bush getting

zonked

> > at a wedding. But lets face it, the man is mentally retarded, a pawn of

big

> > business and the far right, and a liar. His presidency would (will) mean

> > another 4 years of bullshit non-leadership. What's the point of saying

> > anything in his favor?

> >

> > -- wally

>

> Wally,

>

> In Winston Churchill's time, it wouldn't have been necessary to meet the

> yardstick of Absolute Abstinence because that wasn't seen as particularly

> relevant.

>

> I would argue with you on " mentally retarded. " It is my understanding he

has

> dyslexia, which is something far different and usually occurs with

compensating

> mental facilities. The rest, sure. But isn't the rest what we, as an

> electorate, should be talking about?

>

> As you note, Bush has _plenty_ of flaws as a Presidential candidate.

Aren't

> they the ones we should be talking about, what the election should be

decided

> on? And the same goes for Clinton. Should this or that piece of

legislation

> be supported based on its own merit or is the cigar somehow more

important,

> more of a deciding factor than his positions on matters of state?

>

> Doesn't it seem a little odd that who the next President is going to be is

so

> heavily based on how well one candidate can distance himself from

Clinton's

> cigar which has nothing to do with pressing matters of state and the other

on

> how well he can distance himself from misbehavior 25 years before which

has

> nothing to do with pressing matters of state? Doesn't this seem wrong to

you?

>

> Ken Ragge

>

[Guest guest]

Re: Bush video

> Jim,

>

> The really scary thing for me is that BUSH may win. At least Gore has

> some brains for one thing. He's also anti-death penalty, which means

> he might buck " popular wisdom " on other things too.

*** Gore said in one of the debates that he favored the death penalty.

Clinton/Gore type 'Democrats' may believe (secretly, of course:-)) that the

death penalty is wrong, but they are perfectly willing to kill a few people

to get elected.

Actually, being very careful not to buck the popular wisdom has been one of

the leading characteristics of Gore's whole career. The story goes that when

his father lost his seat in the Senate for being too liberal on civil rights

and Vietnam it made an indelible impression on young Al.

--wally

>

> Youve got Govt backed steppism already; you want Govt backed Xtianity

> as well?

>

> I will tone down a previous Americanophobic quip of mine to say that

> this is a choice between the Conservatives and the

> Ultra-Conservatives - take the lesser of two evils, please!

>

> P.

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken:

In our defense a few of us did discuss this in the exclusion extrusion

thread. Granted for my part it was primarily against Bush.

> Re: Re: Bush video

>

>

>What surprises, perhaps disappoints me is the better word, is that

>on this list

>of almost 300 people, the 12 Step Free Zone, it is all partisan

>politics and no

>mention of Clinton and Gore's participation in, endorsement of,

>and support for

>not just the Step groups but also coercion into those groups.

>

>It is not like everyone has to believe that there has to be a good

>authority

>that needs to be defended at all costs, is it?

>

>Ken Ragge

>tree-hugger and civil rights advocate, former self-identified liberal

>

[Guest guest]

> This is not an argument for Bush. I'm just trying to see a _little_

glimmer

> of hope _somewhere_ on the political scene.

So, we freedom fighters can get to put in a lot of spadework just to

get back to where we started? All " faith-based " stuff can possibly do

is help *legitimise* the " spiritual not religious " steppism. You

don't get to stop guys stealing pushbikes by getting them to steal

limos!

P.

[Guest guest]

> The really scary thing for me is that BUSH may win. At least Gore

has

> some brains for one thing. He's also anti-death penalty, which

means

> he might buck " popular wisdom " on other things too.

>

Hi Pete,

Gore has repeatedly *endorsed* the death penalty. I'm not acusing you

of ignorance because even his most vocal critics have trouble keeping

up with his lies.

I am sure he has been against it when speaking before a group that is

against it. This debate satire is actually a very accurate

description of both candidates in action. Which insults your

intellegence more? I am abouve all this because I voted for neither;-

) Jim.

Presidential Debate Transcript

Jim Lehrer:

Welcome to the second presidential debate between Vice President

Al Gore and Gov. W. Bush. The candidates have agreed on

these rules: I will ask a question. The candidate will ignore

the question and deliver rehearsed remarks designed to appeal to

undecided women voters. The opponent will then have one minute

to respond by trying to frighten senior citizens into voting for

him. When a speaker's time has expired, I will whimper softly

while he continues to spew incomprehensible statistics for three

more minutes

Let's start with the vice president. Mr. Gore, can you give us

the name of a downtrodden citizen and then tell us his or her

story in a way that strains the bounds of common sense?

Gore:

As I was saying to Tipper last night after we tenderly made love

the way we have so often during the 30 years of our rock-solid

marriage, the downtrodden have a clear choice in this election.

My opponent wants to cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of

Americans. I, on the other hand, want to put the richest 1

percent in an iron-clad lockbox so they can't hurt old people

like a Frampinhamper, who is here tonight. Mrs. Frampinhamper

has been selling her internal organs, one by one, to pay for gas

so that she can travel to these debates and personify problems

for me. Also, her poodle has arthritis.

Lehrer:

Gov. Bush, your rebuttal.

Bush:

Governors are on the front lines every day, hugging people, crying

with them, relieving suffering anywhere a photo opportunity

exists. I want to empower those crying people to make their own

decisions, unlike my opponent, whose mother is not Barbara Bush.

Lehrer:

Let's turn to foreign affairs. Gov. Bush, if Slobodan Milosevic

were to launch a bid to return to power in Yugoslavia, would you

be able to pronounce his name?

Bush:

The current administration had eight years to deal with that guy

and didn't get it done. If I'm elected, the first thing I would

do about that guy is have Dick Cheney confer with our allies.

And then Dick would present me several options for dealing with

that guy. And then Dick would tell me which one to choose. You

know, as governor of Texas, I have to make tough foreign policy

decisions every day about how we're going to deal with New Mexico.

Lehrer:

Mr. Gore, your rebuttal.

Gore:

Foreign policy is something I've always been keenly interested

in. I served my country in Vietnam. I had an uncle who was a

victim of poison gas in World War I. I myself lost a leg in the

Franco-Prussian War. And when that war was over, I came home

and tenderly made love to Tipper in a way that any undecided

woman voter would find romantic. If I'm entrusted with the office

of president, I pledge to deal knowledgeably with any threat,

foreign or domestic, by putting it in an iron clad lockbox.

Because the American people deserve a president who can comfort

them with simple metaphors.

Lehrer:

Vice President Gore, how would you reform the Social Security system?

Gore:

It's a vital issue, Jim. That's why Joe Lieberman and I have

proposed changing the laws of mathematics to allow us to give

$50,000 to every senior citizen without having it cost the federal

treasury a single penny until the year 2250. In addition, my

budget commits $60 trillion over the next 10 years to guarantee

that all senior citizens can have drugs delivered free to their

homes every Monday by a federal employee who will also help them

with the child-proof cap.

Lehrer:

Gov. Bush?

Bush:

That's fuzzy math. I know, because as governor of Texas, I have

to do math every day. I have to add up the numbers and decide

whether I'm going to fill potholes out on Rt. 36 east of Abilene

or commit funds to reroof the sheep barn at the Texas state

fairgrounds.

Lehrer:

It's time for closing statements.

Gore:

I'm my own man. I may not be the most exciting politician, but

I will fight for the working families of America, in addition to

turning the White House into a lusty pit of marital love for

Tipper and me.

Bush:

It's time to put aside the partisanship of the past by electing

no one but Republicans.

Lehrer:

Good night.

[Guest guest]

> The really scary thing for me is that BUSH may win. At least Gore

has

> some brains for one thing. He's also anti-death penalty, which

means

> he might buck " popular wisdom " on other things too.

>

Hi Pete,

Gore has repeatedly *endorsed* the death penalty. I'm not acusing you

of ignorance because even his most vocal critics have trouble keeping

up with his lies.

I am sure he has been against it when speaking before a group that is

against it. This debate satire is actually a very accurate

description of both candidates in action. Which insults your

intellegence more? I am abouve all this because I voted for neither;-

) Jim.

Presidential Debate Transcript

Jim Lehrer:

Welcome to the second presidential debate between Vice President

Al Gore and Gov. W. Bush. The candidates have agreed on

these rules: I will ask a question. The candidate will ignore

the question and deliver rehearsed remarks designed to appeal to

undecided women voters. The opponent will then have one minute

to respond by trying to frighten senior citizens into voting for

him. When a speaker's time has expired, I will whimper softly

while he continues to spew incomprehensible statistics for three

more minutes

Let's start with the vice president. Mr. Gore, can you give us

the name of a downtrodden citizen and then tell us his or her

story in a way that strains the bounds of common sense?

Gore:

As I was saying to Tipper last night after we tenderly made love

the way we have so often during the 30 years of our rock-solid

marriage, the downtrodden have a clear choice in this election.

My opponent wants to cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of

Americans. I, on the other hand, want to put the richest 1

percent in an iron-clad lockbox so they can't hurt old people

like a Frampinhamper, who is here tonight. Mrs. Frampinhamper

has been selling her internal organs, one by one, to pay for gas

so that she can travel to these debates and personify problems

for me. Also, her poodle has arthritis.

Lehrer:

Gov. Bush, your rebuttal.

Bush:

Governors are on the front lines every day, hugging people, crying

with them, relieving suffering anywhere a photo opportunity

exists. I want to empower those crying people to make their own

decisions, unlike my opponent, whose mother is not Barbara Bush.

Lehrer:

Let's turn to foreign affairs. Gov. Bush, if Slobodan Milosevic

were to launch a bid to return to power in Yugoslavia, would you

be able to pronounce his name?

Bush:

The current administration had eight years to deal with that guy

and didn't get it done. If I'm elected, the first thing I would

do about that guy is have Dick Cheney confer with our allies.

And then Dick would present me several options for dealing with

that guy. And then Dick would tell me which one to choose. You

know, as governor of Texas, I have to make tough foreign policy

decisions every day about how we're going to deal with New Mexico.

Lehrer:

Mr. Gore, your rebuttal.

Gore:

Foreign policy is something I've always been keenly interested

in. I served my country in Vietnam. I had an uncle who was a

victim of poison gas in World War I. I myself lost a leg in the

Franco-Prussian War. And when that war was over, I came home

and tenderly made love to Tipper in a way that any undecided

woman voter would find romantic. If I'm entrusted with the office

of president, I pledge to deal knowledgeably with any threat,

foreign or domestic, by putting it in an iron clad lockbox.

Because the American people deserve a president who can comfort

them with simple metaphors.

Lehrer:

Vice President Gore, how would you reform the Social Security system?

Gore:

It's a vital issue, Jim. That's why Joe Lieberman and I have

proposed changing the laws of mathematics to allow us to give

$50,000 to every senior citizen without having it cost the federal

treasury a single penny until the year 2250. In addition, my

budget commits $60 trillion over the next 10 years to guarantee

that all senior citizens can have drugs delivered free to their

homes every Monday by a federal employee who will also help them

with the child-proof cap.

Lehrer:

Gov. Bush?

Bush:

That's fuzzy math. I know, because as governor of Texas, I have

to do math every day. I have to add up the numbers and decide

whether I'm going to fill potholes out on Rt. 36 east of Abilene

or commit funds to reroof the sheep barn at the Texas state

fairgrounds.

Lehrer:

It's time for closing statements.

Gore:

I'm my own man. I may not be the most exciting politician, but

I will fight for the working families of America, in addition to

turning the White House into a lusty pit of marital love for

Tipper and me.

Bush:

It's time to put aside the partisanship of the past by electing

no one but Republicans.

Lehrer:

Good night.

[Guest guest]

>

> > I think he's covering it up or lying about it or whatever (but I

can't

> > accuse him of a cover up when I have not heard of the video

outside

> > 12sf) because people are swayed by the idea that politicians and

cops

> > and health care providers--authority figures in general--should be

> > better than other human beings. Same reason Clinton said he never

> > inhaled, and denied having sex with Lewinsky. People lie

about

> > sex and drugs; that doesn't change when they assume positions of

> > power.

>

> Judith,

>

> Perhaps I'm suffering " euphoric recall " but it seems that, whatever

flaws

> the media had, this type of story was relegated to outlets like the

Enquirer

> and Globe.

I date it starting with Watergate. It does look different given what

we know about jfk and lbj, it does look to me sometimes like nixon got

the shaft. Then again, so did (imo).

> I keep going back in my mind to something I heard decades ago,

something

> about totalitarian governments have strict enough laws covering

enough

> things that _everyone_ is in violation in one way or another, so

authority

> can simply pick and choose who to enforce the law on. No one is

safe.

Heard a good discussion today about the history of voting rights, and

various limitations placed over time on who got the right to vote

(e.g., gender, owning property).

> While I don't worry much about political leaders, they seem to be

able to

> take care of themselves, what about the rest of us? We all seem to

be

> jumping on the bandwagon and if it is okay to judge Clinton on what

Bill and

> Hillary should be judging privately between themselves and okay to

judge

> Bush on something that in and of itself is nothing wrong, where do

the rest

> of us stand?

We all walk a tightrope and hope we don't get caught short. We hope

our darkest moments--our own cigar-in-the-oval-office moments--will

not ever be asked about by Barbara Walters.

> > I liked what Diener was saying, about placing addiction/

> > dependency and suicide within a larger social context. I

interpreted

> > that to mean, look less at individual behavior, and look more

toward

> > social/ political/ family processes and structures that lead to

these

> > risky behaviors. I think the fact that we (generally) hold people

in

> > positions of power to a higher standard of behavior than others

plays

> > into attitudes about drugs and sex in general. I don't exactly

know

> > how but that doesn't stop me from conjecturing.

> >

>

> I'm wondering if we really are holding them separately to " higher "

standards

> anymore. I suspect _everyone_ is guilty now.

I honestly can't imagine an America that doesn't ask these prissy

questions in public, while living as unprissy a life as possible when

we think we have a little wiggle room. This puritanical stuff is such

a huge part of our heritage, like slavery and genocide of native

americans and getting a square acre of land for free as long as you

homestead and farm it.

> > howsabout this...I think I try to split myself into a " good " part

and

> > a " bad " part. I try to be good rather than bad. But the harder I

try

> > to be good by rigid external standards, the more I worry; the less

> > able I am to hear the music of chance fortune orchestrating my

steps

> > throughout the day.

>

> To my way of thinking, dead right on there.

I'm not surprised, it's an Alice -ian concept imo.

> > I'm not equating bad behavior with joy... well maybe I am. My

> > thoughts in this area are strongly influenced by a good book

called

> > The Guru Papers, recommended by Kimrh. There's a chapter called

" Who

> > is in Control? The Authoritarian Roots of Addiction. " Subheads in

the

> > chapter follow:

>

> Sort of a damned if you acquiesce and damned if you rebel, no?

Yeah, filling in the gaps left by the concept of original sin...

> > What is Addiction?

> > The Divided Psyche: Symptom of a Dysfunctional Morality

> > Taming the Beast: The Inner Battle for Control

> > Addiction as Revolt against the Inner Authoritarian

> > The Failings of Disease and Responsibility Models

> > Twelve Steps to Where?

> > Developing Wholeness and Self-Trust

>

> Sounds like a great addition to my reading list. Thanks.

thanks again to kimrh.

judith

[Guest guest]

> *** Gore said in one of the debates that he favored the death

penalty.

> Clinton/Gore type 'Democrats' may believe (secretly, of course:-))

that the death penalty is wrong, but they are perfectly willing to

kill a few people to get elected.

Did he really go as far as that? I heard he was spineless on the issue

with Bush, but I didnt think he'd retracted that far. Fwiw, I've heard

that if ppl are suggested full lifetime prison with no parole as the

sentence for murder, then more ppl favor this than the death penalty,

but that might be just the UK.

>

> Actually, being very careful not to buck the popular wisdom has been

one of the leading characteristics of Gore's whole career. The story

goes that when his father lost his seat in the Senate for being too

liberal on civil rights and Vietnam it made an indelible impression on

young Al.

Yep, again I've heard that he's spineless on these things. But heck,

I'd rather have a reluctant hang 'em high type than an ethusiastic

one.

P.

>

> --wally

>

> >

> > Youve got Govt backed steppism already; you want Govt backed

Xtianity

> > as well?

> >

> > I will tone down a previous Americanophobic quip of mine to say

that

> > this is a choice between the Conservatives and the

> > Ultra-Conservatives - take the lesser of two evils, please!

> >

> > P.