Predictions in Politics

Post by **BlueChair** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:51 pm

They're selling postcards of the hanging
They're painting the passports brown
The beauty parlor is filled with sailors
The circus is in town
Here comes the blind commissioner
They've got him in a trance
One hand is tied to the tight-rope walker
The other is in his pants
And the riot squad they're restless
They need somewhere to go
As Lady and I look out tonight
From Desolation Row

Cinderella, she seems so easy
"It takes one to know one," she smiles
And puts her hands in her back pockets
Bette Davis style
And in comes Romeo, he's moaning
"You Belong to Me I Believe"
And someone says," You're in the wrong place, my friend
You better leave"
And the only sound that's left
After the ambulances go
Is Cinderella sweeping up
On Desolation Row

Now the moon is almost hidden
The stars are beginning to hide
The fortunetelling lady
Has even taken all her things inside
All except for Cain and Abel
And the hunchback of Notre Dame
Everybody is making love
Or else expecting rain
And the Good Samaritan, he's dressing
He's getting ready for the show
He's going to the carnival tonight
On Desolation Row

Now Ophelia, she's 'neath the window
For her I feel so afraid
On her twenty-second birthday
She already is an old maid

To her, death is quite romantic
She wears an iron vest
Her profession's her religion
Her sin is her lifelessness
And though her eyes are fixed upon
Noah's great rainbow
She spends her time peeking
Into Desolation Row

Einstein, disguised as Robin Hood
With his memories in a trunk
Passed this way an hour ago
With his friend, a jealous monk
He looked so immaculately frightful
As he bummed a cigarette
Then he went off sniffing drainpipes
And reciting the alphabet
Now you would not think to look at him
But he was famous long ago
For playing the electric violin
On Desolation Row

Dr. Filth, he keeps his world
Inside of a leather cup
But all his sexless patients
They're trying to blow it up
Now his nurse, some local loser
She's in charge of the cyanide hole
And she also keeps the cards that read
"Have Mercy on His Soul"
They all play on penny whistles
You can hear them blow
If you lean your head out far enough
From Desolation Row

Across the street they've nailed the curtains
They're getting ready for the feast
The Phantom of the Opera
A perfect image of a priest
They're spoonfeeding Casanova
To get him to feel more assured
Then they'll kill him with self-confidence
After poisoning him with words

And the Phantom's shouting to skinny girls
"Get Outa Here If You Don't Know
Casanova is just being punished for going
To Desolation Row"

Now at midnight all the agents
And the superhuman crew
Come out and round up everyone
That knows more than they do
Then they bring them to the factory
Where the heart-attack machine
Is strapped across their shoulders
And then the kerosene
Is brought down from the castles
By insurance men who go
Check to see that nobody is escaping
To Desolation Row

Praise be to Nero's Neptune
The Titanic sails at dawn
And everybody's shouting
"Which Side Are You On?"
And Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot
Fighting in the captain's tower
While calypso singers laugh at them
And fishermen hold flowers
Between the windows of the sea
Where lovely mermaids flow
And nobody has to think too much
About Desolation Row

Yes, I received your letter yesterday
(About the time the door knob broke)
When you asked how I was doing
Was that some kind of joke?
All these people that you mention
Yes, I know them, they're quite lame
I had to rearrange their faces
And give them all another name
Right now I can't read too good
Don't send me no more letters no
Not unless you mail them
From Desolation Row

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 9:29 pm

Apt lyrics, BC.

I asked a question a while back that I'd like to get back to. This is to folks who are not fans of Bush/Cheney (so that's most).

Is Bush/Guiliani or Bush/Rice (either one) better or worse than Bush/Cheney? And of course, why?

Boy With A Problem · Post by **Boy With A Problem** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:09 am

Noise -

That's sort of like asking if spam, spam, beans and spam is better than spam, spam, eggs and spam.

I guess spam, spam, egss and spam would be better because you would fart less - but I still wouldn't want to eat either of them.

bobster · Post by **bobster** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:50 am

It would be an improvement in the same way that one hydrogen bomb exploding in my pants would be less irksome that two hydrogen bombs exploding in said Levis.

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:59 am

Bush/Guiliani better than Bush/Cheney in 2004. On paper, the Bush/Cheney had far more potential than realized...primarily because of paper and the trail it tends to leave.

Condi had an opportunity to shine, and squandered it. Doesn't mean that I don't respect her abilities and her ambition, but facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts all come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

GW is borne and bred a politician. I will save the thread my political proclivities, although I sort of wear them on my sleeve. So suffice it to say that I have more respect for GWB than the great majority of the contributors to this forum. That should not be misconstrued to indicate that he is my dream candidate, and/or that he has done a fantastic job as the Commander in Chief of the United States.

It does not mean that.

Recent support of the President for the prescription drug bill (the pharmaceutical cartel is the most powerful lobby in DC, to the best of my knowledge, save tobacco...maybe), is, in my opinion, pandering to votes and a campaign issue. The temporary work visa (read: AMNESTY) program is a campaign issue, and flies in the face of so many other planks of the traditional Republican platform. His failure to properly frame the WMD issue is more of a testimony to weak advisors than a sinister desire to dupe the the American people. People should really try to recall, and if they cannot recall, they should really investigate just how many other nationalities and their leaders were absolutely certain that Saddam was well-equiped and ready to rock for the infamy that it would bring to his legacy.

Yes, George is a polititican, but he is focused on a premise that is very meaningful to me as a father of two kids...and that is protecting the United States from invasion and devastation by terrorists...not just for today and the foreseeable future, but for my children's children, and beyond. I honestly believe that his motive here is honest and sincere, with a dash of basketball game politics thrown in because daddy was in the crosshairs of the shitty gambler from Iraq. Given the love that I have for my father, if you screw with him, well....

So Cheney has become a liability for reasons that go beyond health. Guliani will secure votes, although I do not believe that he will agree to serve in that capacity. But Noise, in answer to your question, Bush Guliani is a significantly stronger ticket, and in my opinion, Kerry/Edwards, or Hillary, or anyone that you can dream up would not be able to defeat them in November, barring something catastrophic.

Hey, remeber all those predictions that we would be 'finding' planted WMD's right about now. We already found them...er, him and his advisors who have almost unanimously gone on record as saying that they were actively receiving funding from the Hussein administration, and in return they were providing FALSE progress reports to Saddam that the stockpiles were imminent, and that the chemical, biological, and nuclear WEAPONS programs were on track, and would have potential way beyond self-defense. When asked about the risk that these brilliant IRAQY scientists took by lying to Saddam, they have retorted in unison..."the fact is so very simple...if we told Saddam that we were not even close to the goal, and that we were lightyears behind schedule, and that we were effectively failing in our directed tasks, death was imminent...and not a pretty death at that. These BRILLIANT minds were working under the same operational definition as does the efficacy of Chemotherapy to defeat cancer...that is, they were banking on the fact that Saddam (as the real cancer to IRAQ) would fall before he found out and had them all extinguished. Saddam is a proven WMD. How hard is that???

Define WMD? Is it something that results in the destruction of material capital, human capital, or both. In the grand scheme of things, I think that the destruction of human capital is far more heinous a crime. Is there anyone out there that really believes that this guy was just going to be content to fizzle out and fade away, sort of like some early Niel Young tunes?

Bush and Guliani is mo' better than Bush and Cheney. That's my vote, but I am sure that I made some real enemies on the way to cast my vote.

Mr. Average holds a political stance not too dissimilar to that held by Dennis Miller. But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong...

StaplerMan Dan

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:25 am

Spam....classic.

Nukes in Levis....hilarious.

Mr. Average...thanks for a thoughtful reply.

Selfmademug,

I still really want to hear from you why a Bush/Rudy or Bush/Rice ticket is scary, and whether it would be more or less so than the current line-up.

I for one would be happy to see Cheney replaced, if only because I don't much trust him. I'm not sure who I'd WANT to be VP under Bush if he were reelected, but I could certainly understand the appeal of Rudy or Rice to bush in his bid for reelection. Bush/Giuliani would be harder for Kerry/Edwards to take on than Bush/Cheney. I think. I also think Bush knows that.

This is all academic. 48 primaries to go, and 6 months for significant things to happen until the conventions.

Boy With A Problem · Post by **Boy With A Problem** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 8:12 am

Bush/Giuliani would be harder for Kerry/Edwards to take on than Bush/Cheney.

Bush has a big family values stance - and Giuliani's marital strife, which was well played out in the NY media doesn't jibe with the party line - cheating on his wife in public - tsk tsk.

Lead Story from last week's Onion -

Bush 2004 Campaign Pledges To Restore Honor And Dignity To White House
http://www.theonion.com/4004/top_story.html

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 10:32 am

From your post, BYAP. can I then presume that the NY state populace has bought into the 'victimization' posture adopted by Hillary, and her family values oral jetstream of hot air does play well? I completely understand that you haven't inserted Hillary into this discussion, but the comments that you make about Guliani, while deserved and relevant, seem strange to me given the general, even nationwide blanket of absolution and endearment that Hillary cloaks herself with. Hillary plays this ridiculous "It Takes a Village" tune ('toon?) and people seem to buy it (certainly based on book sales, they definitely buy it!).

I have worked in the city, and across the state. Guliani seems to be accepted for open admissions of his personal transgressions, sort of taking a page out of the Bill Clintom "mea culpa manual" entitled "Yes, but So What". On the other hand, hasn't Hillary played the poor, poor, pitiful me victim to standing ovations? I know that I am veering completely off subject here, but it drives me nuts. Guliani exemplified leadership and gave the state, and much of the nation, a personality to rally around after 9/11. During and since the Clinton Administration, it is very clear that the American public either:

1). ...doesn't really give a damn about personal life transgressions, unless they MIGHT involve allegations against children, or;
2)... has demonstrated a time-constant of "transgresion memory decay" that is on the order of hours...not days, weeks or months. We just seeem to get all excited for a few days, then forget. Much like a small child.

Consequently, the political rhetoric that is spewing forth from all corners at this stage of the 2004 Election year has no more than a Dr. Suess level depth. That's what works. Simple and Clear. If you say the same thing long enough, in a simple and clear way, even if it is absolute shite, the American Voting public will bend in that direction. Not everyone. But a majority.

Want proof? If Wesley Clark finishes high in the polls in South Carolina...that should convince almost anyone that if you continue to say the same thing, over and over, with an honest countenance and a nice warm smile, eventually they will 'buy" it. It spite of mountains of incontrovertable evidence to the contrary. And who is mentoring General Clark through this dance? How long before he begins to bite his bottom lip and produce a faux tear as deftfullly as Pavlov's dog produced spit in association with raw meat. Not even real raw meat. Just an associative stimulus.

This is all so very primal.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:59 pm

I think Giuliani's actions during the crisis of 9/11 absolved him in most people's minds for his marital indiscretions. I'm not sure most Americans even remember them. They certainly didn't hold it against Newt Gingdrich for long when he divorced his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer (bastard).

Again, it's not that he SHOULD be absolved, but I suspect that he has been.

laughingcrow · Post by **laughingcrow** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 7:42 am

Correct me if Im wrong...but wasn't Giuliani perceived as a bit of a right-wing twat who arrested homeless people and shut down art galleries before he happened to be mayor during NYC's biggest disaster, after which he was lionised.

What did he do to make himself a hero at September 11th? Surely the people that actually helped out are the heroes.

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 10:27 am

Crow, yes, you've hit it right on the head. I don't think most New Yorkers give a foo about his marital issues, except as gossip. He did galvanize things after 9/11; he just had the right mix of outrage and calm. I was surprised even at my own relatively warm response to him then, but it was mostly because New Yorkers came together so well, and he was at the center of it. I wouldn't want him in national politics at all.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:44 am

Crow,

Perhaps. But that perception isn't the pervasive one, at least according to friends of mine who live in New York. Take for example David Letterman, who takes singular joy in ridiculing Bush (and does it well, I might add), but who speaks of Giuliani in almost hallowed tones. Whatever he did in the wake of 9/11, whether his actions deserved lionization or not, he's become someoen who could help Bush.

I would not like to see him get into national politics, either. I think he's to be commended for his post-9/11 actions, but that doesn't mean I want him to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:05 pm

Cheney is in, Powell is out, and Rice will become Secretary of State. You heard it here first.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:44 pm

Another very interesting prediction. Powell seems to butt heads with the current Cabinet. You may well be right. Still think Cheney is out. But...very intriguing.

Lipstick · Post by **Lipstick** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:57 pm

Giuliani was on his way to the WTC when it collapsed, and stayed down there for a couple days. The pictures of him at ground zero, covered with white ash, erased everything else.

New York City lost her virginity that day.

Yes, you read that right. Everything changed from that day forward, and for the rest of the U.S. as well. Most citizens had lived in a world where (they thought) everyone liked us and wanted to be like us. On 9/11, they discovered that thousands upon thousands hated us, that we are not safe, that those who hate will stoop to anything. And like children we looked around to see who could help us. Helpers became Heroes, and Heroes became Icons, and the worldview shifted.

Rudy was in the right place at the right time, and stayed put. He went from being a helper to a hero to an icon.

But since we are as children, much of that has already been forgotten. If he is invited to be VP, it will have to be because the GOP thinks people will remember. And a few well-placed commercials, featuring those ground zero images, might do it.

Get ready to see GWP on top of that pick-up with a bull horn in his hand, again and again and again...

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:44 pm

Lipstick wrote: New York City lost her virginity that day.

I know I will curse myself after opening my mouth here, but I have to: really offensive choice of metaphor. Ugh. A female having sex for the first time is not necessarily, thank God, an evil, passive and destructive act that causes one to look at the world with greater fear. You make it sound as though virginity is the preferred state, and sexuality is the abomination.

I'm shutting it now...

Lipstick · Post by **Lipstick** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:57 pm

Well, that's not what I meant at all.

I meant that there was an innocence lost, and it was dramatic and significant. Something that was unknown before is known now. That's all. Certainly didn't mean to be offensive, just dramatic.

Why does virginity apply only to women?

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:09 pm

Lipstick wrote: Why does virginity apply only to women?

It doesn't, but you said New York lost her virginity.

Thanks for clarifying. I knew you didn't mean to offend but it stuck in my craw and thought I'd vent.

As to Noise's question to me, what is scary about both those tickets is that they're palatable to large enough segments of the population to get GWB into office again. Frankly I don't think it matters a rat's patooty, especially in a second term, who is VP. I doubt either RG or CR could aspire to the presidency. All I want is that selfish sorry asshole out of the Oval office.

HungupStrungup · Post by **HungupStrungup** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:18 pm

Please show respect for the office, and use the honorifics applicable: that should be President selfish sorry asshole!

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:25 pm

Thanks for your answer, mug.

I just saw a piece today on the news that was discussing the propect of a 2008 matchup between Giuliani and HIllary. I'm telling you; I'm on to something.

bobster · Post by **bobster** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:09 pm

Well, if a Democrat beats Bush, I think the possibility of Giulani challenging said Democrat in 2008 are a real possibility. If Bush loses, it'll most likely be because he's overplayed his rightwing hand, going to places that Rush and Bush I feared to treat. Therefore, things will look good for a relative moderate (though many of Giulani's statements on warfare and and the like are, LC is right, quite Neanderthaland -- still, in the U.S. context that is, sadly, not inconsistent with being a "moderate" Republican).

And I don't think his mini-scandal will be an issue. He won't have the Clinton-hating army after him. (There really was a "right wing conspiracy" against Clinton. Not sure if it was "vast", but it was obviously effective!)

Also, I almost hate to ask my esteemed colleague Mr. Average, but just what Hillary transgressions are we talking about -- "Whitewater"? "Travelgate"? Killling Vince Foster?

And I'm not a particularly big fan of Hillary or Bill. I'll never understand why most of the right despised them so, since, most of the time on most of the important issues, they essentially did their bidding and danced to their tune. Wonder how they'd treat an actual liberal? Maybe, just maybe, we'll get to find out....

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:53 am

None of the above. The issues that are referenced above, some with solid evidence and some purely conjectural, are trivial in comparison to her genuine malice borne of the need to control, and her voracious appetitie for power.

Bobster, I apologize for not answering with more concrete evidence in this forum, at this time. Too much to say, and probabaly the wrong place to say it.

Suffice it to say that if someone was purposefully misleading my children to believe something that was false, and could actually hurt them, and I knew that they were doing so, it would be repugnant not to yell out loud to try to expose the fake for what she is.

On a lighter note, let me tell you a Gandhi joke I recently heard.

See you soon. It will be a great pleasure to make your acquaintance. Amd I have a few questions about Deepest Darkest Hollywood for you, if you don't mind.

Good Health.

HungupStrungup · Post by **HungupStrungup** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:51 am

Mr. Average wrote:. . . . if someone was purposefully misleading my children to believe something that was false, and could actually hurt them, and I knew that they were doing so, it would be repugnant not to yell out loud to try to expose the fake for what she is.

Up until the "she," I was sure you had switched in mid-post to discussing the current Resident of the White House.

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 9:19 am

Jeeze Louise, I had no idea Hillary was the devil incarnate. Was there another Clinton offspring that she ate or something? So far the only people I know who are misleading children in that way are folks who are trying to put 'Creationism' on the same level as Evolution; or insisting that we can all use as much energy as we like, forever, without f-ing up the world socially as well as ecologically; that CEOs earning exponentially more than workers is 'the American Way'; or any one of many other destructive and greedy beliefs.

I suspect it's best we stay off this topic, but let me say for the record that I'd support her. She's 100% politician, but a pretty good one in my opinion.

HungupStrungup · Post by **HungupStrungup** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:50 pm

In the NY Times today, Nicholas Kristof takes the Bush budget to task as irresponsible and deceitful (e.g., it doesn't include the continuing costs of our involvement in Iraq). On the Times' website, he posted and commented on some quotes as follows:

Nicholas Kristof wrote:Considering that President Bush has just presented a budget that, even with fudging and gimmickry, amounts to a $521 billion deficit, it’s painful to read his first speech on budgets as President. From the White House web site, I found these excerpts from his speech to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 27, 2001. It’s also the speech where, according to Paul O’Neill, the President made comments about retiring the debt that the White House knew to be false. But I’m concerned here with his comments about fiscal prudence:

Dubya wrote:My budget has funded a responsible increase in our ongoing operations. It has funded our nation's important priorities. It has protected Social Security and Medicare. And our surpluses are big enough that there is still money left over.

Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. [Applause.] We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. [Applause.] At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. [Applause] That is more debt, repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history. [Applause.]

We should also prepare for the unexpected, for the uncertainties of the future. We should approach our nation's budget as any prudent family would, with a contingency fund for emergencies or additional spending needs. For example, after a strategic review, we may need to increase defense spending. We may need to increase spending for our farmers or additional money to reform Medicare. And so, my budget sets aside almost a trillion dollars over 10 years for additional needs. That is one trillion additional reasons you can feel comfortable supporting this budget. [Applause.]

We have increased our budget at a responsible 4 percent. We have funded our priorities. We paid down all the available debt. We have prepared for contingencies. And we still have money left over.
But not for long.

Mr. Kristof's words are from this week. As noted, Shrub's are from 2001. I wonder what that George Bush would have said about the re-election prospects of a president who proposed a budget in the year in which he would be facing the voters, with a deficit projected to be $521 billion (even if it could be believed) and no plan to achieve balance ever again. Would he, or anyone else, have considered such a person fit to lead?