The political pundit I'd like to meet. : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread


In Salons recent article "The POTUS With the Mostest," about the fictional President Bartlett on NBCs The West Wing, Joyce Millman writes, "It offers a glimpse of what sort of leader we might elect if our political process were about substance, ideas and accomplishment, instead of character, TV cameras and mudslinging. The West Wing makes you wonder if we could ever send a Josiah Bartlett to the White House."

Josiah Bartlett, who told the Christian Coalition to get their fat asses out of his White House? Josiah Bartlett, who gives his blessing to his college-age daughter dating a black man? Josiah Bartlett, who verbally filleted a knock-off Dr. Laura in front of the cameras and a roomful of people? Could a flesh-and-blood Josiah Bartlett get elected President? As my 13-year-old sister would say, Yeah, right.

Abraham Lincoln said, "that we highly resolve that these dead have not died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." What happened to him? They murdered him.

John F. Kennedy said, "To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is requirednot because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." What happened to him? They murdered him.

Bobby Kennedy, as his brother Teddy said of him, "saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it." What happened to him? They murdered him, too.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said "I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become reality. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word." What happened to Dr. King? You know.

When a New Hampshire dairy farmer complained that Bartlett voted against a bill and thereby hurt the farmers pocketbook by ten cents a gallon, the fictional Bartlett said, "Yeah, I screwed you on that one. You got hosed ... I put the hammer to farmers in Concord, Salem, Laconia, Pelham ... You guys got rogered but good. Today for the first time in history, the largest group of Americans living in poverty are children. One in five children live in the most abject, dangerous, hopeless, backbreaking, gut-wrenching poverty any of us could imagine. One in five. And they're children. If fidelity to freedom and democracy is the code of our civic religion, then, surely, the code of our humanity is faithful service to that unwritten commandment that says, 'We should give our children better than we ourselves receive.

 Let me put it this way. I voted against the bill because I didn't want to make it harder for people to buy milk. I stopped some money from flowing into your pocket. If that angers you, if you resent me, I completely respect that. But if you expect anything different from the president of the United States, you should vote for someone else."

Beautiful, right? Just the kind of honesty and leadership we claim we want in a president, right? But if a flesh-and-blood President Bartlett said that, what would happen to him? Well, if he ever made it to the White House, which I highly doubt, theyd murder him.

John Adams knew the score back when he argued for why Thomas Jefferson should write the Declaration of Independence and not himself. "I am disliked and obnoxiousany draft of mine would undergo a more severe scrutiny and criticism in Congress."

It seems that for many Americans, its the messenger, not the message, that counts.

Vice President Gore has tried with all his might to make this process about substance, ideas and accomplishments. How do the press respond? Hes too wonkish, he needs to loosen up, hes talking too many specifics.

Earlier this year, a New York Times article complained that the Vice President wasnt talking enough about issues. The next day, Gore took a boat ride out into Boston Harbor to highlight the environmental cleanup going on there and his environmental policies in general. What did the next New York Times article have to say about that? Whys he talking about issues? Its too early to talk about issues. And people dont care about THESE issues anyway.

The Vice President was so exasperated, he said a few days later, "How have we gotten to a place in this country where its bad to talk about issues?"

We treat this man like a duck in a shooting gallery. Bing! Too passionate. Bing! Too subdued! Bing! Alpha male! Bing! Earth tones! Bing! Buddhist Temple, Buddhist Temple, Buddhist Temple!

Before we harass our candidates for what we feel theyre doing wrong, maybe we should decide what the hell it is we want, and whether what we want, whatever we decide that is, is actually substantive or merely pretty theatrics.

Were all kinds of serious about our rights as Americans. Try to keep us from owning guns or listening to music with the word fuck in it and well tell you where you can go -- you and the pony you rode in on, too. But we dont take our responsibilities seriously. Ive heard too many "undecided voters" - our bestest new demographic - say that even after all three debates, they STILL dont know who theyre voting for.

Well, excuse me, but maybe if theyd pay attention to what the candidates are saying instead of the colors of their ties and who kisses his wife the hottest, they might have all the information they need.

Allow me to use my Aunt Barbaras favorite phrase when she wants to say something mildly insulting, but wants to soften the blow: "I dont mean to say anything, but"

Well, I dont mean to say anything, but seems like people want to get all their information in one 90-minute debate, packaged into neat , camera-ready sound bites. Well, heres a news flash: its impossible to cram all the issues and candidate positions into an hour-and-a-half.

One undecided focus group participant on CNN said after the third debate that he liked what Gore said about recruiting new teachers, but wondered how he planned to attract them. If this man had read any article over the past few months concerning the Vice Presidents education proposals, he would know that Gore wants to offer these teachers $10,000 sign-up bonuses. I dont mean to say anything, but geez, pick up a newspaper, will ya?

On the one hand, the pundits complain that the political debate in this country needs to be elevated. On the other hand, theyve devoted hours and hours of broadcast time over the last few days to discussing the Rolling Stones cover photo of the Vice President and the apparent size of his "package." Sounds to me like its not the political debate theyd like to elevate.

On the one hand, Gores a know-it-all, people complain in a schoolyard kind of way. (Boy, if they resent Gores intelligence, they damn sure wouldnt like President Bartlett. Hes a real brain, and hes got a Nobel Prize in Economics to prove it.) On the other hand, they claim they dont know what he stands for. Well, how do they know hes a know-it-all unless they know what he knows? Sounds to me like the dog ate somebodys homework.

The presidential race in this country has been reduced to a high-school popularity contest. People seem to be basing their opinions on who theyd rather have at their kegger instead of who theyd want negotiating nuclear arms treaties with the Russians.

Lets just be honest about it - were not voting for President of the United States. Were voting for Most Popular Kid in Class.

So why not go the whole nine yards? Instead of having debates, maybe we should have had tailgate parties. Lets suit these guys up and see who attracts the most cheerleaders. Instead of the candidates giving speeches, lets have them slip into a couple of swimsuits and compare their packages side by side.

Instead of town hall meetings, lets have a drinking contest. Lets give each of them a beer bong and see who can chug the most Bud. Lets have a spelling bee. Spell "dude." Okay, now use it in a sentence. "Whoa, your math is way fuzzy, dude."

The next time Bush calls Gore a serial exaggerator, Gore should just say, "I know you are, but what am I?" Maybe people would like that better.

In fact, I know how we can settle this whole thing. Gore should just challenge Bush to a fight after school. It wont exactly be a fair fight -- Gore has a few inches on Dubya (Im talking about his height, folks)-- but thats all right. The debates werent exactly fair fights, either. Gore had a couple of inches on Bush there, too, only in a debate they measure it in IQ points.

Yes, thats it, lets have a rumble. Then well find out once and for all who the best man really is in a way befitting the honor and dignity of the office. If Governor Bush is a little nervous about being overmatched, maybe we can even let him have Triple H or Stone Cold Steve Austin as his partner. Winner takes the White House, loser promises to go back to Texas where he belongs.

Come on, Governor, what do you say? I double dog dare you.

-- Anita (, October 22, 2000


Recent polls which show Bush ahead of Gore also include opinion polls of each candidates "likeability" and "intelligence." The results are unsurprising, Bush clearly beating Gore on likeability and Gore beating Bush by an even higher margin in intelligence. Given the choice of which type of candidate one would rather have as President, it would seem that the American people value a likeable candidate more than an intelligent one.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 22, 2000.

I suggest this was written after a recent poll where Gore was trailing. Apparently, Mitchell cannot fathom why the great unwashed cannot see the obvious Truth of Mr. Gore and the democratic party. Why, everyone but the liberal intelligentsia must be idiots! Once again, the liberals embrace the common man when peddling populist policies... and then reject him when he doesn't vote the party line.

Hey, I share the author's frustration with the lack of serious political discussion in America. I reject, however, the simplification of the presidential race into a battle between the ubergenius Mr. Gore and the inept Mr. Bush.

There are legitimate reasons to vote against Mr. Gore... whether this vote is cast for Mr. Bush or a third party candidate. Some Americans simply reject Mr. Gore's policy initiatives and his party's political philosophy.

Perhaps the most unfortunate part of Mitchell's temper tantrum is to include the assassination of political leaders. Who are "they" anyway? And why does Mitchell suspect some member of the American public will kill any gifted (read liberal) leader?

Here's a clue for Mr. Mitchell. If you want to elevate the level of political discourse, start with your writing.

-- Ken Decker (, October 23, 2000.

Here's a clue for Mr. Mitchell. If you want to elevate the level of political discourse, start with your writing.

Good one Deck! Is this your *standard* retort for folks "above you*?

-- Doc Paulie (, October 23, 2000.

I almost heard the choir in the background on this piece. I wanted to stand up and salute. The "I'll fight for you" meme of the democraps.

-- Maria (, October 23, 2000.

Actually, DP, I have no standard retort. Every bit of foolishness deserves a tailored response... even yours. Second, I'm not sure what you mean about "above me." Perhaps Mr. or Ms. Mitchell lives at a higher elevation? I honestly do not consider the author "above" or "below," just way off to the left.

Speaking of same, have you noticed how the "balanced" media creates heroic liberal presidents? In "An American President," Michael Douglas gives us a stirring speech about taking away guns and saving the environment. On the West Wing (I show I have only watched once) apparently the Christian Coalition receives a sound thumping from the faux president. In art, we see the manifestion of the liberal presidential dream... a photogenic, sensitive leader who isn't afraid to impose socialism onto a grateful public. In popular culture, we also see the beatification of liberal saints. Mitchell stays true to this course.

In the end, what does this essay offer? From my perspective, it is little more than a long whine about how the American voter isn't smart enough to realize that the liberals really know best.

-- Ken Decker (, October 23, 2000.


I find myself agreeing with you once again...

What really pisses me off about the "liberal speak" is their wanting to "protect me from myself".... puhleeeze...

I am a grown person. I can take care of myself. You liberalese... just go away...

If I want to live in socialism, I will move to China...

growlin' at the TV...

The Dog

-- The Dog (, October 23, 2000.

Thanks Decker that Reagan dude had my eyes blinded, or is from the thin air up here? You are correct once again only Liberals create Saints.

You also have the assassination deal correct also. Unfortunately most everybody else thinks we had a Coup when JFK went bye-bye, but you are right all them other people have to be full of it. Only logical and all.

So you want to bicker over the tiny issues they let us peasants squawk about? All the while the main issues have not changed in 2 decades? whatever for?

-- Doc Paulie (, October 23, 2000.

oops, make that 3 decades. Lost track in all the sameness, sorree.

-- Doc Paulie (, October 23, 2000.

Ah ... I don't want to say anything but ... people DO seem to be basing their opinions on 'who they would rather have at their kegger instead of who they would want negotiating nuclear arms treaties with the Russians.'

Thanks Anita, I enjoy essays like this. Alot of sarcasm, some humor and seriousness all mixed together.

-- Debra (, October 24, 2000.

DP, I am a bit confused. What are these "tiny issues" that "they" let us bicker about? Who are "they?" And what are these "main issues" that have not changed in three decades? You are starting to sound rather like Andy of the old forum.

-- Ken Decker (, October 24, 2000.


You know I try to ignore most of the stuff which is fringe. Stay out of the Andy type areas, and for good reason, they are usually more about a person's mental state than anything real in larger reality. You probably think otherwise and I respect that but believe it or not I do try and stay centered.

Unfortunately this Presidential Race has exposed some connections which truely trouble me. I am admit I have merely begun to do any real research, and do not know where the trail leads. So far it makes me ill what I am finding.

Let me just give you a link. Now what could be the problem with a son of Ronald Reagan being a regular advertiser on the website of the Washington Times? Well the WT is owned and operated by the Moonies. And who are they? A Cult which has a rather long history of political activities. Unlike many fringers, the Moonies have ties at levels which frankly give me the willies, the Michael Reagan connection one of them. George Bush Sr was and maybe still is connected with the Unification Church/Moonies.

Why is this important? Well for one Michael Reagan, syndicated "right- wing" radio show host is a regular advertiser for the Moonie Cult? Am I supposed to figure he does not know who he is supporting? What else is this Reagan involved with? And who follows this type of rightwing/religious political dogma? Well many it seems. And it does not take any stretch to understand many who follow a MR do not really understand just how extremist these folks are.

May think this all baloney. Problem however is the Moonies exist. They own the WT. Michael Reagan is a regular advertiser. Is all this just bizarre coincidence? Does it mean anything? Well I have concluded at the minimum it stinks to high heaven.

This WT/Moon/Reagan connection also makes me question why the VP of a successful two-term President is losing a race to another Bush with absolutely zero experience at any national level. Many are scratching their heads in utter disbelief frankly. Maybe Americans just want a change. Maybe the Hayseed factor is at work. And just maybe something else is at work here. I do not believe these Moonie-Rightwing connections end with them. I think there is clearly many connections with a Religious/Political core.

Like with many of the Y2k Doom movement interconnections, my alarms are sounding loudly.

Doubt this answers your questions Decker. Maybe you can explain to me why a Michael Reagan Advertises on a Moonie owned Newspaper? or maybe explain to me why a WorldNetDaily sells but two books and one is by Gary DeMar? Who is this Gary? the other half of the Gary North ReCon effort that's who. Maybe you can explain why CPR, well known Y2k kook exposer is silent on these connections? Why exactly was Joe Lieberman excommunicated? and at this exact point in time? Seriously, what in the hell is going on with this country?

-- Doc Paulie (, October 24, 2000.

>> Unfortunately most everybody else thinks we had a Coup when JFK went bye-bye <<

A coup in favor of whom?

Lyndon Johnson was no more of a war hawk than JFK. Recall JFK's inaugural speech, where he promised that the USA would "bear any burden, pay any price" in the struggle against Communism? JFK went forward with the Bay of Pigs invasion and he played chicken with the USSR during the Cuban missile crisis. JFK was no war dove.

LBJ was bolder in favor of civil rights than JFK was. He signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and very foresightfully understood that he was signing away the Democratic Solid South for at least a generation. Yet he signed them anyway. I wonder if JFK would have done that?

In order to argue for a coup, you would at a minimum have to name some very powerful force that JFK stood up to and LBJ rolled over for. Who?

And one more thing, DP - I highly doubt that "most everybody" agrees with your position.

-- Brian McLaughlin (, October 24, 2000.


Ok maybe not a Coup(and thanks for calling me on this, I really do appreciate it). Chalk that up to my over active imagination and too many Oliver Stone movies. I will say the word Vietnam at least as to my why.

But what do you make of these polls?

The JFK Assassination

A Gallup poll taken two weeks after the assassination found 52 per cent of Americans believed there had been a conspiracy to kill the president. By 1993 CBS News poll found 89 per cent of the population believed in the conspiracy and 81 per cent believed there was an official cover-up.

Course the conspiracy nuts helped all this I know with theri books and documentaries/movies. But the figs do tend to support that "many" think we were not given the whole story. I have seen the Zapruder film as most have, I have no doubts the fix was on that day in Dallas.

May have been an isolated hit, I doubt it. The resulting further assissinations paint a real ugly picture somebody was real active back then.

If it was just a lone nut, why not release the files now?

-- Doc Paulie (, October 25, 2000.

Hey Doc,

The Moonies also own the Kahr Pistol Co., a maker of fine CONCEALABLE small pistols. You think this adds to your conspiracy???


watchin' the rain...

The Dog

-- The Dog (, October 25, 2000.


At one time the Mormons were also considered a cult, and in some circles still are. When does one graduate from being a cult to being a religion? (I should state here IBm an atheist so IBm neutral). The question should be does the MooniesB owning of the WT influence itBs news coverage? So far I havenBt seen any evidence of it. They can be described as conservative but the Washington Post can be described as liberal. Why should the later be OK but not the former? The owners of the NYT are mostly Jewish. Should we be as skeptical of the coverage in The Times because of that?

As for assassinations and cover-ups those beliefs have been around ever since Lincoln. While there was a conspiracy with Lincoln it was small and they were all caught. I think it is human nature to want to believe that there must be some great plan behind these acts rather then just lone madmen. I have to agree with Brian about JFK and Vietnam. It was JFKBs okaying of the assassination of Diem that led us more into it. There was a lot of speculation afterwards that he would have not gotten involved. Mostly by JFK sycophants. But looking at his speeches and actions I am doubtful. He not only okayed DiemBs assassination but he and Bobby were going after Castro too. While IBm not a believer in conspiracies (at least not of that type) those who play with matches should expect to be burnt.

As to AnitaBs initial post. This is simply the media setting up the noble liberal vs. the one-dimensional conservative. Why people feel that this is acceptable while they would be outraged about the opposite is beyond me. You see it in the applauding coverage given Joe Lieberman when he prayed and talked about religion as opposed to when George Bush or anyone from the right talks about religion. The media was upset when Bush went to Bob Jones University which doesnBt permit interracial dating and has anti-Catholic statements on its web site. Yet Orthodox Jews, such as Lieberman is supposed to be, make men and woman worship separately in the Synagogue and are against interfaith marriages. No media outrage there. It seems to depend on whose ox is getting gored. Or is that AlGored?

-- The Engineer (, October 25, 2000.


How many subscribe to the Washington Post? the WT? The MARKETPLACE has voted(listening Unk and Cap?). WT is not Conservative, they are extreme. Course who can tell the difference nowadays(hint)? Got many believing otherwise(hint)for their extremist agendas. Go read off their website. If you aren't careful you would think you are at WorldNetDaily. Is WND not the most simplistic example of extremism available?

BTW, the belief from many Conservatives that they represent a big percentage of the American People, is a lie. Most are under some delusion they maybe are half, not.

I think it is absolutely critical a suppossed Conservative begins to question their unbalanced sources of information(sounds like the Polly argument from Y2k). And understand, the Post is slanted toward a Liberal vain, no kidding. But I doubt many feel it in the same league as a Moonie owned WT. Your reply here indicates to me you have trouble placing things into "proper" perspective and think extremist newsrags the mere flipside in some rational national conscience.

Again, how does Michael Reagan explain his being a major online advertiser for an extremist propanganda arm of the Unification Church? How, as a Chritian does he explain it? Maybe some need to question themselves about their own religious convictions? Rev Moon thinks Christ a failure. He believes American women all whores. He thinks *he* is the chosen one. Now what does this say about Michael Reagan? Does this indicate integrity to you? Do you think the financial supporters of Reagan understand their support ends up financing the wacko Moonies?

-- Doc Paulie (, October 26, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ