Posted on 12/01/2003 11:19:05 PM PST by Badray
Tonight was different than most of my evenings. I've spend many evenings involved in political discussions, but this one was at a (Wesley) Clark for President meetup. I was in the belly of the beast. One non-FReeper friend met me there, but soon left saying that to stay would just be 'too painful.' Perhaps I should have followed him out the door.
But, I didn't. And here, to the best of my recollection is what transpired over the next two hours.
MeetUp.com
I had heard about the meeting tonight from an announcement in the local paper and since it was close by, I decided that I wanted to see who supports Wesley Clark and why. There was lots of good news for the ABC (anyonebutclark) people. Ranging from poor planning to poor turnout, the meeting in my estimation was less than successful although they were thrilled with the turnout.
The meeting was in the middle of the restaurant - not in a private room - which didn't allow for them showing a video that they brought. They made reservations for 20 people and had 9 people show up including me. This was there 3rd meeting in this area (Pittsburgh Metropolitan) and they were happy to have 9 people. (Sidebar - at our 2 Toomey meetups thus far, we have had 20 & 22 people). The people themselves were very friendly. There was a teacher, 2 lawyers, an HR manager, a retired chemist, and 2 or 3 homemakers among them.
When we introduced ourselves, they all were ecstatic about being able to vote for Clark. I, in the interest of (almost) full disclosure, told them that I wasn't committed to any candidate yet and wanted to see why Clark was their choice. I didn't go into more detail at that point. They were happy to have an opportunity to try to 'convert' me. Little did they know they my agenda was to highjack the meeting and to see if it was possible to convert them.
One man who was pretty serious about the whole thing kept trying to get them to move into talking about the tactics, strategy, and logistics of campaigning. I kept asking questions and moving them away from anything substantial.
They all thought that Clark was extremely intelligent and getting better at his responses. D'uh. He's had a lifetime and two months. Thrilled at doing so well on the Letterman Show, I deflated that balloon by telling that Letterman never asks hard questions.
They talked of the last two debates and were pleased that the 9 dwarves are not attacking each other, but going after Bush. I countered that they haven't distinquished themselves yet either or shown enough difference between them to make a decision. That's why I had such a hard time trying to decide between them .
I was asked if I would vote for Bush if I couldn't find an acceptable democrat or if I would sit out. My reply was that if I found none of them acceptable, I might vote 3rd party. They cringed at that, remembering the 2000 Florida election where Nader cost algore the race. (Except when Bush stole it) When the serious guy told me that sitting out or voting 3rd party was ineffective and tandamount to voting for the incumbent, I replied that my vote was too important to cast for someone or something that I didn't believe in. That warmed the cockles of their heart even if the didn't get me to say that I'd vote for anyone to get rid of Bush.
That was their main focus. I asked who their 2nd choice would be if Clark was no longer in the race. Almost in unison, the answer was ANY ONE just to get rid of Bush. They really hate the man. Many of you know that I have not been his biggest fan, but their hatred is almost pathological in it's intensity.
When they started to attack Bush on Iraq and repeated all of the talking points of the DNC, I couldn't take it any longer. I raised my voice and told them that I voted reluctantly for Bush because I couldn't stand algore and although I wasn't pleased with a lot of Bush's policies, he was, and is right on Iraq and the overseas WoT.
The one lady lawyer started with Bush stealing the election. I stopped her immediately and told her to read up on the Electoral College and she would understand how our system works. Besides, none of the recounts showed algore won. I think that I really took them by surprise, because I was quite adamant.
They started on our soldiers dying for Bush and oil and Halliburton, yada, yada, yada. I responded that the war was just and it was the right thing to do. They shut up pretty quick when I told them (it's true) that my God-child's husband was just killed there last month.
My work was almost done. One couple got up to leave and then everyone did. They never showed the video that they brought. They gave it to me in the hopes of winning me over. I left without blowing my cover. I must be a better actor than I thought.
In conclusion, I doubt that, without lobotomies, there is any hope of converting any of these people. They really believe the democrat crap. I was treated courteously throughout and although I wasn't totally honest with them, I tried not to outright lie either. I am unsure of who gets my vote next November.
One bright spot, when I mentioned Hillary, there was almost a spontaneous expression of hope that she would just go away. As a candidate, they all thought that she had too many negatives and drew the most intense reactions and that she could sink the democrats chances of taking back the White House.
It definitely was fun bouncing back and forth between here and there during the last election in 2002. 2004 should be GREAT since it'll be a BIG one. Hopefully, everything will go our way and NOTHING will go their way and it'll be TOO much fun!
My family is grown also and I have grandchildren, however, it'd be a cold day in hell right now that I'd be out romping around at the othersides meetings when I know that they'd be passing out the bread because the bologna's on the way.. Did you offer any of your opinions? What happened? How did their ideas/plans differ from yours?
I don't want to rehash the whole two hours here again - I pretty much answered all of those questions in the original post. Suffice it to say that they were democrats and I'm not and could never be. I can't and don't accept their ideas of what this country is and how it is to be governed.
I don't agree that the question should have even been asked. Personally, I don't care if he screwed Monica Lewinsky or not. Had it been Reagan or Bush instead of Clinton, I still wouldn't have cared.
I'd take your word for it because you have never lied to me, but on this forum statements of 'fact' have to be backed up by evidence. Do you have a source for that other than your memory?
"STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, then they but what gets lost there wait a second, what gets lost there is that George Bush did oppose a patient's bill of rights in the state of Texas. And he did and he's not for the Dingell/Norwood bill." Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10988
"But in reality, Bush fought both tooth and nail. He vetoed the patient's bill of rights when it first came up, in 1995, and then in 1997, faced with a likely veto-proof majority, he let it pass without his signature. Republican state senators on the floor of the state Senate complained that Bush's key staffer was trying to sabotage the bill." Source: http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/05/lies/index.html
You know for a 'fact' that he only thought about it for 15 minutes? And if it is fact, is that wrong? The person has been through a trial and a series of appeals. Especially in well publicized cases of heinous crimes, why do you need 'days' to decide that someone is deserving of the death penalty? Can you provide info on this 'serial killer' and the decision? I've never heard this accusation before.
"On June 27, 1998 Governor George W. Bush spared Henry's life because of overwhelming evidence proving that Henry was not in Texas when "Orange Socks" was murdered. Although Lucas confessed to killing her, work records and a cashed paycheck indicated he was in Florida at the time of the murder. Bush issued the reprieve on the recommendation of the state parole board. "I can only thank them for believing the truth and having guts enough for standing up for what's right," Lucas said from death row. "Henry Lee Lucas is unquestionably guilty of other despicable crimes which he has been sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison," said Bush, in Brownsville for a conference of U.S.-Mexico border state governors. "However, I believe there is enough doubt about this particular crime that the state of Texas should not impose its ultimate penalty by executing him." Source: http://www.houseofhorrors.com/lucas.htm
Lucas had also gone through the lengthy Texas appeals process.
That seems quite evident. No further proof is required, but if you don't mind telling - Who did you vote for?
I wrote in John McCain.
Principle? McCain? Only if you are not ascribing Republican principles to him. He is one of the most anti liberty Senators to carry the GOP label. He is a smoking nazi. He is in favor of gun control. He wrote the unconstitutional campaign finance reform law. The Democrats wanted him to run. What does that tell you about his 'principles'?
It doesn't change my mind. I agreed with him on those issues.
It's okay for clinton to get oral sex and force himself on women and lie about - AND GET DISBARRED OVER IT, and that's okay. But Bush reminds you of a 'fraternity boy'? As I said earlier, I am an established Bush basher - for his policies. Your complaints are merely sophomoric. I repeat my earlier question: Are you sure that you are on the right forum?
Clinton lied about getting oral sex, sure. Nobody will argue with you on that...not even the Democrats. However, Bush has a couple of DUIs under his belt. Cheney has one too. I don't trust a man to run the country who has twice been sanctioned for driving while drunk. Sorry. Those are my "principles" rearing their ugly head. I'm the daughter of an alcoholic. I know how alcoholics are...I know all the lies and B.S. stories...and the excuses. I don't trust them.
Revenge? For what? For winning? Or are you one of those who don't understand the Electoral College and thinks he stole the election?
No, I think they feel it's revenge for the 8 year Clinton-hating orgy that distracted lawmakers on both sides from the business of running the country.
Bush has the House and nominal control of the Senate and he is still giving the Dems a lot of what they want. Clinton fought Congress every step of the way and the few things that we got - Welfare Reform, for one - he promised to undo as soon as he could. Clinton didn't give the GOP anything.
Yes he did. The GOP swept into power in the House in 1994 and that power has not yet been threatened. That's a huge gift.
I thought so too. I thought that the left loved Hillary.
Now, that IS brave!
Maybe you don't care because you weren't the paintiff in the suit. His pattern of behavior is most cetainly relevant to the case. If it hadn't been, he wouldn't have been fined and disbarred.
""STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, then they ? but what gets lost there ? wait a second, what gets lost there is that George Bush did oppose a patient's bill of rights in the state of Texas. And he did ? and he's not for the Dingell/Norwood bill." Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10988
"But in reality, Bush fought both tooth and nail. He vetoed the patient's bill of rights when it first came up, in 1995, and then in 1997, faced with a likely veto-proof majority, he let it pass without his signature. Republican state senators on the floor of the state Senate complained that Bush's key staffer was trying to sabotage the bill." Source: http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/05/lies/index.html"
You and your sources agree that he opposed the bills (and it sounds like I would too), but I don't see where he said that he supported them. If I missed it and it was a lie. It's wrong. I don't condone it.
"On June 27, 1998 Governor George W. Bush spared Henry's life because of overwhelming evidence proving that Henry was not in Texas when "Orange Socks" was murdered. Although Lucas confessed to killing her, work records and a cashed paycheck indicated he was in Florida at the time of the murder. Bush issued the reprieve on the recommendation of the state parole board. "I can only thank them for believing the truth and having guts enough for standing up for what's right," Lucas said from death row. "Henry Lee Lucas is unquestionably guilty of other despicable crimes which he has been sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison," said Bush, in Brownsville for a conference of U.S.-Mexico border state governors. "However, I believe there is enough doubt about this particular crime that the state of Texas should not impose its ultimate penalty by executing him." Source: http://www.houseofhorrors.com/lucas.htm
Lucas had also gone through the lengthy Texas appeals process."
It sounds like everyone agrees that this man did not do the killing that he confessed to and for which he was sentenced to death. If he wasn't sentenced to death for the other crimes that he was accused of and either confessed or was convicted of, why shouldn't the sentence be commuted from death to life in prison? He (the convict) sounds like a dispicable human (or sub-human), but under our criminal justice system, we don't execute people for crimes that they didn't commit.
You really are stretching to come up with valid complaints against Bush. And in case you missed it - I am not a Bush fan.
"I wrote in John McCain."
It doesn't surprise me.
"It doesn't change my mind. I agreed with him on those issues."
This doesn't surprise me either. That's why I questioned your presence here. McCain is hardly the ideal of conservatism.
"Clinton lied about getting oral sex, sure. Nobody will argue with you on that...not even the Democrats. However, Bush has a couple of DUIs under his belt."
I heard (possibly true) rumors of ONE DUI some years ago BEFORE he quit drinking, but now you have proof of TWO? I'd like to see it.
"Cheney has one too."
Proof please.
"I don't trust a man to run the country who has twice been sanctioned for driving while drunk.
If true, (and does time since a DUI and a change in lifestyle and behavior mean anything or are we condemned as 'sinners' forever) a DUI is a misdemeanor which doesn't rise to the level of impeachment (to borrow a phrase).
"Sorry. Those are my "principles" rearing their ugly head. I'm the daughter of an alcoholic. I know how alcoholics are...I know all the lies and B.S. stories...and the excuses. I don't trust them."
I'm the son of a drunk. So what? Since you are projecting your anger based on your experience, perhaps if you had someone cheating on you with every woman he could get his hands on, you'd be as angry at lying philanderers as you profess to be at lying drunks. Besides, Bush changed his behavior. Clinton didn't, hasn't, and likely never will. My principles tell me to trust a man who 'repents' more than one who doesn't.
"No, I think they feel it's revenge for the 8 year Clinton-hating orgy that distracted lawmakers on both sides from the business of running the country.
Do you get your talking points from the DNC? That sounds so much like "The people's business" that clinton always claimed to be doing. It's BS. And besides, I rather like when the Congress is tied up and not passing laws. When they 'work', it generally costs us both freedom and money. Let them be tied up all year for all I care.
Yes he did. The GOP swept into power in the House in 1994 and that power has not yet been threatened. That's a huge gift."
That wasn't his intention so it was hardly a gift.
This is the most interesting thing I have heard in a while
Isn't it, though? It surprised me too. But I still don't think that she or Bill are ever going to go away. Ever.
It was never proven that he sexually assaulted Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky was a very willing participant. So he lied about getting some nooky on the side. So what?
You and your sources agree that he opposed the bills (and it sounds like I would too), but I don't see where he said that he supported them. If I missed it and it was a lie. It's wrong. I don't condone it.
He said he did during his campaign. You have to read the whole story and maybe do a little research of your own (gasp). I don't waste hours doing research for people that call me a liar.
It sounds like everyone agrees that this man did not do the killing that he confessed to and for which he was sentenced to death. If he wasn't sentenced to death for the other crimes that he was accused of and either confessed or was convicted of, why shouldn't the sentence be commuted from death to life in prison? He (the convict) sounds like a dispicable human (or sub-human), but under our criminal justice system, we don't execute people for crimes that they didn't commit.
There were many people that came before Henry Lee Lucas that Bush allowed to be executed...many with evidence of innocence that was just as clear-cut. Henry Lee Lucas was only tried and sentenced on the one count, but he is known to have committed at least 20 murders between Texas and Illinois. So...of every single condemned man that comes before him, the white trash serial killer who may or may have not murdered Orange Socks but who CERTAINLY killed dozens of other women warms his heart, but people like Gary Graham, who I do NOT think was actually guilty, goes to the death chamber. It's arbitrary and stupid. Henry Lee Lucas was a sick, twisted serial killer and was one of the men on Texas's death row that deserved it the MOST...yet Bush commutes his sentence to life. At the time, I thought it REEKED...and I still do.
You really are stretching to come up with valid complaints against Bush. And in case you missed it - I am not a Bush fan.
LOL...sure, keep telling yourself that.
This doesn't surprise me either. That's why I questioned your presence here. McCain is hardly the ideal of conservatism.
I'll vote for who I want, when I want. I don't care what you think or whether you think I deserve to be here.
I heard (possibly true) rumors of ONE DUI some years ago BEFORE he quit drinking, but now you have proof of TWO? I'd like to see it.
Sorry, I confused Bush's number of DUIs with Cheney's. Cheney has two. Bush has one.
Proof please.
I thought this was common knowledge. Next you'll be asking me to prove that the sky is blue. This is the last time I will obtain proof for you. Next time, you will have to do your own research.
"Cheney got a union job laying power lines in the blue-collar town of Rock Springs, Wyo. He stayed in constant touch with Lynne, who was in college in Colorado; he had had to endure teasing from Plotkin for writing her almost daily from Yale. On occasion, he drank too mucha practice that led to two DUI arrests within a year. Cheney told Nicholas years later that the arrests motivated him to get his career on track." Source: http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2002/poycheney2.html
If true, (and does time since a DUI and a change in lifestyle and behavior mean anything or are we condemned as 'sinners' forever) a DUI is a misdemeanor which doesn't rise to the level of impeachment (to borrow a phrase).
Drunk drivers kill thousands of people every year. I don't consider it a minor transgression.
I'm the son of a drunk. So what? Since you are projecting your anger based on your experience, perhaps if you had someone cheating on you with every woman he could get his hands on, you'd be as angry at lying philanderers as you profess to be at lying drunks. Besides, Bush changed his behavior. Clinton didn't, hasn't, and likely never will. My principles tell me to trust a man who 'repents' more than one who doesn't.
I don't know that he changed his behavior. There have been lots of pictures of him drinking published since he was elected. Bush is every bit the unrepentant liar that Clinton was.
Do you get your talking points from the DNC? That sounds so much like "The people's business" that clinton always claimed to be doing. It's BS. And besides, I rather like when the Congress is tied up and not passing laws. When they 'work', it generally costs us both freedom and money. Let them be tied up all year for all I care.
Why don't we just throw out the whole system and have a dictatorship?
I'll go slow so that you can follow along. Paula Jones made the accusation against Clinton. Over the years there were other allegations. There was a pattern of conduct. In front of the grand jury and a Federal judge, he lied. Don't you know by now that the cover up is usually perceived to be worse than the deed being covered up? Because he lied, he was disbarred. Because he lied, he was fined. He agreed to pay Paula Jones $900,000.00. You don't pay that kind of money if you aren't guilty. If you pay ten grand to save on lawyer's fees, maybe you aren't guilty. But not 900 grand.
"He said he did during his campaign. You have to read the whole story and maybe do a little research of your own (gasp). I don't waste hours doing research for people that call me a liar."
I didn't watch every minute of his campaign. I don't know his Texas history. I didn't call you a liar, I just followed standard FR practice - if you make a claim here, you are the one that has to back it up.
"There were many people that came before Henry Lee Lucas that Bush allowed to be executed...many with evidence of innocence that was just as clear-cut.
Then I suggest that you either run for governor so that you can make those decisions or get on the board that makes the recommendations. Do you also believe that Mumia (the convicted cop-killer in Philadelphia) is innocent too?
"Henry Lee Lucas was only tried and sentenced on the one count,..."
It sounds like the prosecution screwed up if he 'was known' to have killed other people in Texas, but was only tried for one death. You may not like it, but if he wasn't guilty of that crime, he can't be executed for it.
"...but he is known to have committed at least 20 murders between Texas and Illinois."
Perhaps the other states will try him and execute him after he gets out of his Texas prison cell, which would be after he dies. If he is already away for the rest of his life, I doubt that anyone else will expend the money to convict him again. Bitch about the prosecutor. From what you describe, Bush had no other choice.
So...of every single condemned man that comes before him, the white trash serial killer who may or may have not murdered Orange Socks but who CERTAINLY killed dozens of other women warms his heart, but people like Gary Graham, who I do NOT think was actually guilty, goes to the death chamber. It's arbitrary and stupid. Henry Lee Lucas was a sick, twisted serial killer and was one of the men on Texas's death row that deserved it the MOST...yet Bush commutes his sentence to life. At the time, I thought it REEKED...and I still do."
What possible reason could he have for commuting his sentence? The man will spend the rest of his miserable life in prison. He's not going to be contributing to any of Bush's campaigns. He certainly didn't win your affection and likely not any one else's heart. He must have seen pretty convincing evidence that the death penalty was wrong in this particular case. Didn't he also not commute the sentence of the woman that killed her husband and girlfriend when she caught them in bed together? This is the woman that 'gave her life to Jesus' while and prison. She didn't ask for leniency, but others did on her behalf. He did the right thing by letting the execution go forward. Do you remember that case? Did you agree with him then?
You need to cool off some of your emotions and look at the facts dispassionately.
"LOL... sure, keep telling yourself that."
Still not very convincing.
"I'll vote for who I want, when I want. I don't care what you think or whether you think I deserve to be here."
I'm sure that you will, but you better only do it on election day. I'm not sure that you don't care because you keep coming back. I didn't say that you didn't 'deserve' to be here. I just questioned if a conservative forum was the right place for you. You don't display many conservative traits.
"Sorry, I confused Bush's number of DUIs with Cheney's. Cheney has two. Bush has one.
Apology accepted.
"I thought this was common knowledge. Next you'll be asking me to prove that the sky is blue. This is the last time I will obtain proof for you. Next time, you will have to do your own research.
Again, you made the claim. You have to support it.
"Cheney got a union job laying power lines in the blue-collar town of Rock Springs, Wyo. He stayed in constant touch with Lynne, who was in college in Colorado; he had had to endure teasing from Plotkin for writing her almost daily from Yale. On occasion, he drank too much?a practice that led to two DUI arrests within a year. Cheney told Nicholas years later that the arrests motivated him to get his career on track." Source: http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2002/poycheney2.html"
DUI while Cheney was in college? My God, that was 40 years ago and even your source says that it motivated him to change his life. I'd say that it did as he as been rather productive and successful since.
"Drunk drivers kill thousands of people every year. I don't consider it a minor transgression."
Stupid sober drivers kill many more. Neither Bush nor Cheney killed anyone. You're making those leaps again. Not everyone who drinks kills people. Ted Kennedy has. But not Bush or Cheney.
"I don't know that he changed his behavior. There have been lots of pictures of him drinking published since he was elected. Bush is every bit the unrepentant liar that Clinton was."
BARBRA STRIESAND! Because you see him with a glass of liquid in his hand at a dinner, you accuse him of drinking and by extension still driving drunk. You are pathological in your hatred too.
"Why don't we just throw out the whole system and have a dictatorship?"
Where did that come from? You need to talk to someone about your emotional outbursts. It's not healthy. Congress spends too much. It's a fact. If they are tied up in impeachment proceedings, then they can't spend more money. BTW, Congress is charged with that duty. It's in the Constitution. Do you need me to send you a copy?
Pedanic_Lady:LOL...sure, keep telling yourself that.
LOL ! I know Badray and have had NUMEROUS debates about Bush since he was elected. BELIEVE ME ! I can verify his statement ! Maybe you could do some browsing through the archives and look at some of his posts - you might be dining on crow !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.