Four More Years...

quote:

---

Ralph Nader announced on Meet The Press just now that he's running for president again. Will this mean four more years of Bush? I think so.

---

I think this is a very weak assessment, both of what happened in the past and what will happen in the future.The reason Gore lost in 2000 had NOTHING to do with Nader.1) His choice of Lieberman alienated members of his own state (which he also did not campaign hard enough in) and so lost those votes, so if one is looking for lost votes in general Democrats should start there...2) The SC appointed Bush the presidency after those in charge of the election system in Florida (his brother and campaign manager), disenfranchised many voters. This does NOT include those who couldn't manage to punch a ballot correctly. If the court cases had been allowed to go forward at the time and the disenfranchised voters allowed to vote (again not talking about the chad problem) Gore would have been elected. Gore hung his campaign hope on the chad issue instead of the more important one (perhaps because it would be quicker and he figured he would win it).3) Nader picked up votes from people unhappy with both parties. More than likely if Nader had not run Nader votes would have gone to no one or to another third party (there was more that the Green Party you know). It is a vain concept that if not for Nader, those people would have voted for Gore. Gore was an ass, even if the lesser of two evils.The reason Nader will not affect the future vote...1) The clarity between parties is much stronger now and people will be less attracted to third parties in general. In fact, Howard Dean helped push the Democrats back in a direction where disillusioned Democrats who went to 3rd parties last time are more likely to return (not to mention Bush scaring others back).2) Even moderate conservative independents and Republicans are feeling hit by Bush. His fiscal irresponsibility and actual undercutting of our defensive standing in the world has cost him people that might have been attracted to his camp in 2000 because there was such a slim difference between the parties back then (and the US was doing well).3) Even if Nader got the same numbers as last time (and it is unlikely he will) that would still leave the democratic party victorious as they were in 2000. The question will be if there is more voter disenfranchisement this time around in states where it will matter, and how much each side increases the number of voters than they had last election (I'm assuming given the state of the world they won't lose voters).My guess is 2004 will still be close, but Democrats really have to stop blaming Nader for their past loss and using it to predict a future loss. That makes the Democratic party seem very weak, and that is not a good image to be projecting right now.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

it certainly doesn't apply to the Limbaugh republicans, which number in the millions.

---

Maybe my statement, which you quoted was not clear enough. I was NOT talking about Limbaugh Republicans at all. I was talking about the people on the edges of the parties that can slip back and forth. Notice the phrase "cost him people that might have been attracted to his camp in 2000".There are republicans and conservatives that are upset with Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility. The Cato Institute recently ripped into him, as well as a number of conservative economic thinktanks. Some are even suggesting that his failures are going to have to be fixed by taxes (then we can all remember his daddy saying "read my lips"). Once you get the Cato institute grilling you for your policies, that means the thinking republicans are beginning to waver, and so might the more independent minded conservatives.

quote:

---

Are there really very many people worried about Bush having undercut our defensive standing in the world, assuming that's even true?

---

Yes there are. Many ex-intelligence officials, and they are almost excusively republican leaning, have blasted Bush for his mishandling of intelligence and national security. This will not play as heavy as the economic issues, but it is recognized as an issue and again may peel away voters.I agree that the large republican base will remain the same. But the last election was not lost by a vast majority. It was actually won by democrats by a vast majority. The only issue is demographics in narrow margin states, which swing electoral votes away from representing popular votes. Even there it is not going to take millions or even thousands of disaffected voters to change the balance.Bush has got to worry about getting everyone he had last time, plus an increase of the swing edges of the opposition party. At this point in time (though things may change) he is losing his swing edge.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

here in Enron's back yard, I assure you attention to the top management of Enron is big news. Slowly but surely, the prosecutors are working their way up the ladder of former Enron management and charging them.

---

Really? Does this include the government officials that helped them gouge the populace? A good example is Enron. Once we get to the top of Enron, that's it? Then we got the bad guy? What about his best friend George Bush? How about Cheney?They helped Enron out and took Enron's money and services in exchange, up until Enron was indicted and then Bush says he didn't really know Ken Lay.Are you up for going after Bush and Cheney, perhaps forcing Cheney to expose the papers he is trying to hide (and Scalia appears set to let him get away with)?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You didn't mention another point as well. Bush's fiscal policy has put us in a financial position where we cannot defend ourselves properly based solely on paying for services (and not just material replacement costs which you accurately detailed).We are in a HUGE deficit because on top of going into Afghanistan... which was necessary... we went into Iraq. As it is that wholly unnecessary diversion added to the cost of Afghanistan (because it lengthened that conflict) and so made it worse for everyone anyway.So now we are sitting here with a huge deficit which will already influence us negatively. This means "rogue nations" can start picking us off financially by starting problems... what are we going to start a WAR??? How will we afford it? And the worst part is Bush left the most important nations we'd have to deal with still on the table: N Korea, China, Pakistan, etc.For any Republican that claims Reagan was the hero of the cold war by driving the Soviet Union into bankrupcty, they have to be thinking very seriously about what edge we are poised on that some other country can push us over.I guess Bush "forgot" that economic strength is just as vital as military strength when going to war. We are now more vulnerable to the very threats he talked about from rogue nations, rather than safer.[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-24-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

You seem pretty certain Bush and Cheney are guilty of wrongdoing. Am I correct in concluding you believe there's been an inappropriate exchange of favors for donations?

---

Let me get back to you in more detail later. But I will answer this now. I believe the nature of wrongdoing is more along the lines of not doing something (turning their heads), than actively helping them commit a crime.It may come down that the activities they engaged in are unable to be charged as crimes (against set business law), but without question are unethical (and should be added into law if not there).PS--- and the influence of energy policy is only a small piece. The scandal regarding the price gouging of Californians by Bush's pals (including Enron I believe) to which he looked the other way is perhaps more important.[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-24-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

If you have evidence, then present it.

---

What evidence do you need:1) That Bush was close friends with Ken Lay, using his personal jet during his pres campaign, and then lying after the Enron scandal that he didn't really know a man he had previously called "Kenny Boy"?2) That Congress is seeking evidence, which Cheney refuses to hand over, and that it is now going to the SC?3) That Scalia has refused to recuse himself from the SC case mentioned above, despite going on a hunting trip with Cheney, funded by an energy company that may very well be one of the companies in the very evidence he is to judge whether should be released or not to congress?4) That when the energy crisis hit CA, and it turned out that the energy companies who "helped out" actually scammed CA, Bush refused to open an investigation/prosecution?

quote:

---

you are just reeking of speculative conspiracy theories, as usual, when it comes to politics.

---

By which I gues you are referring to the war on porn (which is well documented and I pointed out where you can find the info), or the disenfranchisement of Florida voters or the actual timeline of events (which can be found by yahooing).

quote:

---

If I had the time, I would dig-up the counter arguments.

---

You will find no other counters than the mere assertions you have already presented. You could however (if you find the time to look for counter evidence) just yahoo on the basics of the points I presented. There you will find real evidence.As I mentioned to Percy, the wrongdoing that Bush and Cheney have with respect to the energy companies (including Enron) may end up being more unethical than illegal, but they are certainly related.All I asked is if you thought the investigation and prosecutions should move up to them as well since they are obviously connected to each other? We certainly did for Clinton on one small land deal... which only gave us a blowjob. Why should we not pursue possible connections in this, some of the greatest NATIONAL ECONOMIC SCANDALS in recent history.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I'd feel pretty sleazy reaching a conclusion based on what you presented.

---

Heyyyyyyyy now. Read my post, it pretty well implies if not states directly that people should go out and look for the information... because it is out there. I was not suggesting people believe me just because I say so.The reason I didn't post any links is because it has been a while since I read them (remember some of this is back around 2000), did not keep them, and some of it I take for granted people already know (like Bush and Ken Lay being pals, until the scandal).As it stands I asked for you to give me a bit. Perhaps I should have stated it more clearly: please hang on for a bit (by this weekend tops) and I will get you some links regarding the Bush-energy corp connection. Doing a search to refind info for others on this topic is not high on my list when people can look for themselves if they are interested.I guess I considered my post a point of departure into further research on a topic instead of an end conclusion (regarding the energy thing).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Discussions about what someone actually meant are pretty pointless. If you want to believe that's an accurate assessment of your post then go ahead, but you might want to follow the suggestion to read your post yourself.

---

yet

quote:

---

No one suggested or even hinted that the investigation of the Enron collapse should have limits. I hope, and I'm sure ThingsChange hopes, that investigators follow the evidence wherever it leads.

---

Yeah... I get the message...

quote:

---

I found articles recounting the same things you said, some of them using the same tone. I posted a link to a more balanced one from CBS MarketWatch

---

"Same tone"... that's sweet. How about these... Bush rules out aiding California energy crisis at federal level. He passed the CA energy crisis buck to the state and said it was a result of conservation and not deregulation. Conspiracy theorists might like to take note that this article... pre 9-11... shows Bush setting out hardline against Iraq for WMDs at the same time he's supposed to be talking about energy. Here's another interesting break down of the situation at its beginning from ABC.Consumerwatchdog discusses Bush's deregulation blaming and notes the comparison to the 1970's energy crisis that was actually artificial. Could the CA crisis have been manufactured? Such "biased rags" as Time looked at this possibility.Same for Salon.And the unbalanced PBS news organization decided to do some interviews on the Crisis. Note the info under Ken Lay's bio... this is before the Enron collapse, yet we can already see Ken Lay's possible motives in manipulating energy policy in general and CA policy in specific. Rep. Waxman isn't exactly balanced either... here are some of his reasons for investigating the connections between Enron and Bush energy policy...But that takes some puzzle work of of going through all of his writings. There is a nice sort of connect the dots overview on this link. I am a bit hard pressed to accept the author's connections of Bush's entire energy policy dealings to the Iraq War(on the evidence provided), but the energy policy issues in CA with Enron and Bush-Cheney are pretty straightforward.[/url]It also contains more links at the bottom two of which are pretty interesting: Here... and here.The basic idea is that a group of energy companies (including Enron) began taking advantage of deregulations in energy policies in CA. Through market manipulation they jacked up costs to artificially create an energy crisis (similar to the one in the 1970's). Bush Cheney and Lay (among others) were interested in avoiding regulating energy, despite the gouging which threatened the CA economy itself.Interestingly Lay, who early on had worried about using a crisis for profit, had eventually been "turned" and was now on board and an active promoter of "free market" control of energy. He was continuing to try and keep policy on this course as a full national policy... this would of course be part of the papers that Cheney is trying to conceal... Lay's connection, and the intent to allow profit to dictate energy policy at the expense of consumers.After all the money and time invested in the Bush-Cheney ticket, it is pretty clear he had AT LEAST managed to keep the fed gov't out of regulating the CA crisis, and was apparently hoping to solidify future "hands-off" energy policy with others.But this comes back to your question of what could be in those papers? Here's an interesting rundown of Lay as contributor and connected man with Bush-Cheney. Remember this article was back before the Enron fall and Ken Lay was still able to be talked about (even the fact that he was almost our energy secretary... oh yeah and Bush didn't know him?).For those not wanting to bother going to this link, here is an excerpt that is supposed to be POSITIVE, yet AFTER what has happened actually sounds ominous...

quote:

---

(referring to Enron's massive input of money into Bush-Cheney)And what did Enron get out of the deal?

​

Well, Lay has repeatedly asserted in interviews that there is no quid pro quo in his relationship with Bush.

​

"Ken Lay and Enron have consistently stood for open access to energy . . . markets," company spokesman Mark Palmer told us yesterday. "What that means is for the marketplace to determine how a scarce resource is allocated."

​

So it was no surprise when Lay showed up for last week's energy negotiations, first in Washington and then later in Los Angeles, to push the energy marketers' case.

---

It is only in the light of what followed that the above takes on shall we say conspiratorial overtones. But what followed did happen, and so the light is real and not vain conspiracy theory.Ken Lay wanted to make sure first in CA and then across the country that those who own energy companies should "determine how a SCARCE resource is allocated". Being the producers they could of course, as has been shown to be the case, determine how "scarce" that resource is.Is that balanced enough?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

A point of view? You got it! Balance? Uh...

---

Seriously, after reading through the links you feel that there are still legitimate questions whether:1) Bush knew Ken Lay before the fall of Enron, and that he was a major contributor to the Bush-Cheney campaign.2) Ken Lay and Enron were involved with the CA energy crisis and made a large profit during the crisis, which the FERC has determined was likely due to manipulation rather than an actual absence of resources.3) That Ken Lay appealed to the white house to keep fed price controls off of CA utilities.4) That Ken Lay had been trying to help (along with others) formulate a White House energy policy where free markets control scarce resources (in this case energy supplies).5) That it is POSSIBLE the papers which Cheney is trying to keep under wraps might reveal the initimate contacts with Ken Lay and other energy companies involved in the CA energy scandals, and so embarass the White House.If the above are true, which I think the links backed up, then the case is laid out WHY the papers are being sought, and it was not isolated to just concerns over future policy making, but dealings with those that had already been implicated in a scandal, which the White House refused to touch at the time.If you think the above points were not made, then I would be interested in knowing what was lacking, or what bias they all held such that you could not trust the evidence they presented on those points.[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-25-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

You're pushing me as if you want me to defend Bush

---

I'm not asking you to defend Bush, and I apologize if my tone makes it seem this way. My "alarm" is mainly regarding the seeming dismissal of evidence which is out there.Could you please answer the question of my last post. Are the points that I mentioned shown or not shown in the links I provided? If not I would like more than references to my alarmism, innuendo, or circumstantial information.The points themselves, as far as I can tell, are not merely circumstantially concluded, they are real.Neither is the POSSIBLE conclusion one can reach, circumstantial. Circumstantial suggests that things could have just happened at the same time and so appear worse or more interrelated than they really were.It is clear that Ken Lay was a friend of Bush-Cheney, pumping in lots of money while championing free market solutions to the CA crisis, and hoping to get that as part of national policy... unless the article written about him in a positive light before the collapse of Enron was a rushed conclusion and the statements made by an Enron executive (in support of Ken Lay) was "innuendo"?It is also hard for me to believe that PBS and the FERC both rushed to a conclusion based on innuendo, that Enron (one of many companies) made vast profits during the CA crisis, and at least the FERC (later on) concluded that the crisis was manufactured. If you need more evidence on the manufactured part I can find more articles.And it is certainly nothing to do with circumstance and innuendo that Bush now says he does not really know Ken Lay, which is wholly contradictory from the facts. He IS doing this and that raises a very valid question of WHY?And it is certainly not mere circumstance and innuendo that Cheney does not want to release information about energy policy discussions which Ken Lay certainly would have taken part in at the time.Given these valid points, it is not a rushed conclusion to say there is a very solid appearance of impropriety and perhaps a coverup of illegal activity (especially with the actions of Bush and Cheney in the face of an investigation, and the reality that Enron has been shown to actively manipulate things for profit).That is all I am saying. It is very suggestive and should be investigated, but investigations appear to be headed to wrap up everything before reaching the doorstep of the White House. Just as the investigation into 9-11 was stopped at the doorstep of the White House, and now the investigation into use of intelligence on Iraq is set to stop at the doorstep of the White House.My money is on if/when Ken Lay goes to jail, the White House washes its hands and walks away, without so much as a simple probe. Yet the above points are more suggestive of impropriety than what the Republicans had on Clinton when they launched an entire probe into all aspects of Clinton's life.You can disagree with my side of the bet, or believe that it is more likely that the activities stated above were not necessarily illegal, or even unethical (perhaps just distasteful), but my eyebrows go up when it seems you are saying anyone believing those points are real are somehow rushing to judgement, or that even if they are true do not create a very solid appearance of impropriety.Am I misunderstanding your posts?PS--- I want to add that although I am against Bush now, I was firmly opposed to Gore and held no real reservations against Bush before the election (to tell the truth I was even kind of rooting for him of those two). Just being a kind of news junkie I have become more and more despondent as Bush (even during the election) has come out with clear falsehoods, entangled himself in clear improprieties, and then managed to have investigations or federal oversight quashed.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I didn't understand what you were saying. Were you saying the points I set out were not valid, or just the conclusions? If the former then I am puzzled and would like to know why, if the latter then I have no issues. I thought I documented the points well, and that they suggest (even if not proving) impropriety.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

where political issues are concerned the possibility of certitude is greatly diminished. I *do* find it interesting to delve into history, even recent history, but when the expressions of opinion become too strong I usually take that as my signal that it's time to leave.

---

People can hold this position as a rule of thumb, but in the real world isn't there a point where positions can (and perhaps should) be formulated based on available evidence? These do not have to be 100% certainty, but of high probability given what is indisputable.The reason I ask is that it seems that if this is how one lives one's intellectual life, it will lead more often than not to hesitation. In a sense it is stasis in overanalysis, or more accurately a giant argument from ignorance. I do not know for certain therefore it cannot be debated, and by default be considered wrong.From history we have learned that 100% of evidence is not necessary to draw a logical conclusion, and sometimes waffling until there is overwhelming evidence is to actually blind onesself to the truth needlessly.

quote:

---

...more from amazement that amidst such a confusion of facts and fallacies and opinions and unknowns that anyone thinks they're likely right.

---

To be frank, I believe you cut yourself too much slack with this self-assessment. There have been some occassions where facts were presented and you never addressed why these facts should not be believed, yet held positions which clearly required ignoring the validity of the facts.I am still uncertain if this is true in this thread, because I am still uncertain what you were saying. Were you doubting the points were real? Or just the conclusion one might draw from those points?This is not to further debate but to clarify to me what you were saying... It appeared you were dismissing the points of fact, and if that is so and you have a real reason for doing that I would honestly like to know why... for MY OWN information. They look like valid points to me, backed up by outside sources over time, and they are not presented by comedians like Al Franken. But I do not want to be accepting false information.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Maybe in the end it will turn out to be a big scandal.

---

My argument is it won't become a scandal because the administration has been very good at quashing real independent investigations, combined with general public apathy/disinterest in politics/economics.

quote:

---

At the present time this seems to me like the normal amount of hounding a sitting president.

---

Not sure where the hitch in communication exists. It appears that you are approaching this with an assumption that this is primarily an issue about a sitting president.In reality it was an issue which started in the news without any relationship to Bush (he was not even president at the time). It was only in the course of investigation that Bush became president and in the way he handled the ongoing crisis implicated himself... it should be noted it was Bush's own appointed members of the FERC and not partisan or media hacks which uncovered the energy manipulation scheme and first pointed the finger at Ken Lay.This is what makes it wholly different than the White Water scandal. If anything it is more along the lines of Watergate. This started as a regular investigation not focused on Bush at all, and just ended up running into him due to the paper trail.If you are disinterested that is fine, and you can ignore the following...FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN MORE EVIDENCE IN THE BUSH-KEN LAY RELATIONSHIP:The smoking gun website recently filed FIA's and were able to get letters directly from Lay to Bush, while Bush was still just a governor. The nature of the letters not only fix the FACT that Ken Lay and Bush knew each other more than Bush claims now, but also PROVES Ken Lay's interest in getting Bush to help formulate energy policy around complete deregulation.Perhaps when the facts I mentioned earlier are written by Ken Lay on Enron stationary and confirmed to have been read by George Bush's own office, it might seem less theoretical. This is the first page which explains what SG was trying to find, and did find, when they got they filed their FIA request. There are many interesting correspondences which follow. This is the first page of a very interesting letter to Bush from Lay. This is the second page and perhaps more important one, though the first one sets it up. In this letter Lay discusses how allowing free markets to control energy supply will NOT result in rising prices as many predict (and ironically what ended up happening), but a decrease in prices for everyone as well as... Bwahahahahahahaha... LESS BROWN AND BLACKOUTS!!! (also opposite of what happened, to say the least). This page is Lay discussing that it is his intention for Enron to be one of the nation's energy retailers and how free market lack of control is the answer.People who go there will notice this relationship and energy plan formulation began back in 1996 (from the dates on the letters). The media had no way of knowing this was going on and it was not even suspected, much less uncovered, until the CA energy crisis occured, the FERC found manipulation, Enron was fingered as a culprit by Bush's own appointees, and the media expanded its investigation of the CA energy crisis to where the FERC itself pointed.[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-27-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Uh, this is a thread about the sitting president's reelection chances.

---

Really? I thought it was Nader's effect on the possibility of Democrats beating Bush.

quote:

---

I applaud your efforts to find someone else to discuss Enron-gate

---

By which I take it that even if there was a thread opened on that topic in specific, you would be uninterested in looking at solid evidence in order to continue holding the position you have?

quote:

---

I'm not sure it would be on-topic unless you believe it will affect the election.

---

Will or should be an issue? If one of the characteristics of president is character and honesty, which is on the table... then his factual dishonesty is an issue. He has lied about his connection to Ken Lay. That is a fact proven well beyond the theory of evolution.The latest links I posted leave this beyond any doubt, unless Bush and Ken Lay are in on the frameup of themselves?Frankly I think the future of energy policy SHOULD be a more important issue than honesty. In that case his handling of Enron and the CA crisis and Cheney's policy conference documents SHOULD be a bigger factor than whether Bush lied.The fact that it is not as big an issue to the public right now (who knows what will happen between now and the election) does not mean it won't be or shouldn't be.

quote:

---

The democrats just had a debate and I hear they focused much more on Bush than on each other. Did Enron-gate come up?

---

Why yes it did. Not in his handling of energy policy in specific (esp. the CA crisis), but the nature of Bush's dishonesty with the american public yes. And I find it funny that you seem to be suggesting that Cheney's attempts to keep notes out of the public eye is not an issue mentioned by Democrats.This certainly is not the largest issue as the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, Social Security, Health Care, employment, and now gay marriage haved come to dwarf that singular issue which occured at the outset of his administration. But when honesty and his allegiance with big business comes up, Enron and Ken Lay are usually right there.Frankly anyone that says all those OTHER issues (except gay marriage) are more important that what he did with Ken Lay (who is now defunct anyway), is perfectly free to do so and I think that is valid! I never said it was an overriding issue. I only brought it up when TC appeared to believe that Republicans were really concerned about rooting out corruption in big business.Anyone that says because it is not a prime issue, that one can't formulate an opinion regarding the evidence at hand, is dead wrong.But I repeat once more... this thread is about Nader's influence. Nader does go off on Bush's connection to corporate criminals, and his aim at deregulation for energy. So I guess this is an issue for Democrats, if they do not address such concerns and so people move to Nader, who will.touche.[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-27-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

If in your view there's enough evidence to reach that conclusion, then fine. I don't hold the honesty of any politician in high regard, so you haven't exactly caught my interest yet.

---

It's not just my opinion, and is this entire thread all about YOU? I wasn't even talking to YOU. YOU WROTE ME!Can you stop writing your opinions to me, debating points I make to other people when/if you have NO interest in them. You said the facts were debatable. Certainly conclusions of illegality are... the facts are not! That's all I ever said.

quote:

---

Did the issues you raised about Bush and Enron and Ken Lay and Cheney and notes come up in the debate or not?

---

Well I can't say really, and who can. I mean does anyone really have a transcript or something we can read which would be evidence? Oh sorry, I don't really care about this topic anyway.*

quote:

---

But not as hilarious as you assigning me positions on issues on which I haven't commented. How you get this from my question "Did Enron-gate come up?" is beyond me.

---

Sorry for poor paragraph structure. That sentence was actually referring to your earlier assertion that it wasn't really an issue for the democrats in general during the election, and not your question regarding last night's debate in specific.

quote:

---

which broadens the scope.

---

Just for you? Why does "Four more years..." not include facets of Bush's administration of this country that other people may feel is important?Either way the first post was clearly about Nader which would certainly open the door for commentary from his position.But you are the one that has thrust this topic upon me, and painted me into believing that is some major issue. I don't think so at all. All I did was bring it up to TC, then you made a false claim. Sorry if I felt I had to rebut your false claims.If you are interested, the major issues as I see them are:1) The Bush doctrine. This concept of unilateralist action, and pre-emptive military action, is to my mind quite dangerous and reversing strides the international community has taken toward world peace. It has already set very bad precedents, and weakened relations with important allies.2) National Security. His doctrine aside, he has done a terrible job creating real security. The number of intelligence failures allowed to go unpunished is just a small part of the picture. We are still at an equal level of threat that someone can hijack a plane because he has not acted on point security.3) Health Care. Universal healthcare is a necessity. The idea that socialized healthcare for profit is better than socialized healthcare not for profit is just kind of silly to me.4) Balanced Budget. This guy does not tax and yet he spends on frivolous pursuits. The fact that he went from black to red and it just keeps going down is the opposite of what I like. I am actually quite conservative when it comes to economics.5) Tax Reform. He actually believes it is best to tax people who work and not tax people who invest. That is so backward I do not know where to begin. He is also against streamlining the tax code. I was actually with Dick Armey for simplification (althought I would have liked a slightly more graded one than he proposed).Notice Enron is not on my top 5. It's probably not even in my top 10. I never said it was.*- now to answer your question, as an honest debater does. No, if I remember right they did not mention Enron or Ken Lay by name at all during the debates. I was saying that they did discuss his dishonesty. The Enron issue plays to that characteristic and the Democratic Party does bring up Enron with regard to that from time to time.[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-27-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)