Where's all the smack talkers NOW????????

[tonytohono]

Ah Alpha.. we are seeing the same light simultaneously.

[d6]

PBS doc on China's unregulated air quality, and the jet-stream and coastal water effects we get from it, whoo-hoo! Should I leave the house today with or without my oxygen tank?

Politics, a bag of tricks?

WWII = still affecting present day policies by the terms set in 1945?

2000 election = stolen?
2004 election WON. By insidious means, religious fervor, gay-bashing, take-your-pick-fill-in-the-blanks?

voting for one of the non-2 party affiliates might let you sleep easy, but really, why not just throw your vote away?
or embrace a human trend, and not do anything at all?
Badnarik? No chance, my write in vote goes to KODOS.

I suppose now I'd better get some black 501's, shave the sides of my head, dust off the army boots, make a sweet muscle shirt, start blasting the old wax trax records, change the "e"'s in my name to "y"'s, wait for a year to immigrate to Canadia, change my mind, watch tv, waste food, do nothing, complain via internet, scratch my nose, singularly pull-out butt hairs for lack of anything better to do, squint, see just how many days I can go cultivating negative body hygiene, make demands, gain more weight, finger-point, lock my doors in fear, hide behind non-factual 'logic", name call, I AM RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh wait, I'd better be a responsible single parent of 2 in a world full of fucked-up humanity, while still having the luxury to be alive.

If you read this far, you have my gratitude.


d6,
loves the smart ones.

[tonytohono]

I'm with you samtzu-Fuck Despair.

I don't intend to go down without a fight.

I am hoping I am wrong, but those are my fears...

[Rian Jackson]

Again, Fuck Despair!! I refuse to give into it, or move out of the country, or just become a grumbling old fart sitting on a porch somewhere, pissed off at everybody. With absolute joy and conviction I am going to do something, anything, about it... dunno' what, yet... but I will find a goal and reach it... who's with me?

Yes.. but maybe not...

It's tough, Sam, for those of us who spent so many of the last years working for these things and are seeing all of them trampled or rolled back.

There were protesters yesterday on Westlake with anti-Bush signs and all i could think is 'Dude. Don't you realise the election was yesterday? That's not going to help now...'

Some areas I could still see working in:
1) middle east, obviously - barghouti for president!
2) immigrant issues here - major human rights violations.

Continuing to think aloud (thanks Alpha):
It almost seems like this republican (supposedly small government) government is making a lot of laws to legislate behaviour. I have a fair amount of agreement, though not total, with folks who call for less federal government. If I’m not mistaken that’s typically a libertarian or republican voice. But all I’m hearing from this administration is laws to curtail people’s rights, to expand the powers of the federal government, and a lot of talk about legislating away state’s rights in terms of issues like gay marriage. Does this seem a little, I dunno, disingenuous to anyone?

For ages one of the things many conservatives have rallied around in the bulk of Democrat governments – welfare, other social benefit programs. But now we’re pouring a hell of a lot of money into FEDERAL military, a lot of energy into FEDERAL morality laws that undercut civil rights. (Does anyone know how the spending stacks up, both in $ and %?)

Of course, there are those states that passed their anti-gay marriage amendments. I hope that isn’t seen as a mandate for the rest of the country. I find that to be the most depressing thing about this whole election. It’s especially frustrating when you see this effort, as many of us do, as the current battleground in civil rights. The main issues were racial a few decades ago. This is it, now. And denying gay marriage is, to me, the same as if the US had up and said that if you weren’t white you couldn’t marry. Kinda reminds me of rules against interracial marriage.

BTW, thanks Geekster for your levelheadednes and good information. I have a feeling that even though we disagree on methods, we may hold some of the same values. Much like Joel and me. Don’t tell him I said that, he’d think I’ve given him cooties.

One last thing, especially for you, Geekie – in the WA races, the Libertarians rarely espoused much of a coherent philosophy. Most of their statements in the voter’s guide said ‘you should have a choice’ and nothing about what they intended to do, or what direction they wanted to take things. It was frustrating. I almost always find a couple of my votes going Libertarian. This year in was hard to justify because our candidates were spineless. I wanted another option other than Democrat or Republican, but they didn’t really provide it. Did anyone else have this experience? Geekster, can you explain why this might have been?

[Alpha]

But all I’m hearing from this administration is laws to curtail people’s rights, to expand the powers of the federal government, and a lot of talk about legislating away state’s rights in terms of issues like gay marriage. Does this seem a little, I dunno, disingenuous to anyone?

It certainly does. At the same time that Bush is on the campaign trail smearing Kerry for being a "big government" liberal!

[tonytohono]

No shit Alpha... but I guess if nobody has actually paid for it (yet) it doesn't count, right?


***just thank goodness you're not my kids, else you'd be inheriting debt***

[samtzu]

Political action needs a focus. That is basic. Effective political action needs hard work, again, basic. Effective political action on a national or international level needs creativity married to focus married to hard work. I'm still on step one. For the last thirty years (yes, I'm that old) I have ignored/avoided politics... until this election... and this election so pissed me off that I have vowed to do something. To be effective (and what's the point of doing it if you're not going to be effective?) I need to study, meditate, reeducate myself, and find that focus.

I intend to blather along as usual for the next few months, never fear, but I am serious about this... I'm pissed... now, let's see if I can focus that down to an effective program for change.

[Simply Joel]

hey, what about doing something locally... as opposed to trying to impact something echelons above reality, your reality at least... just a thought.

[geekster]

For the benefit of anyone wondering what I am talking about, the following are but a few of geek's quotes from various threads around here.

All this outragious hate against Bush started because people were pissed that he lost the popular vote in 2000 so his presidency was not "legitimate". Well, this time it is. He not only won the largest number of absolute votes, he also got a larger percentage of the popular vote than Clinton ever got.

Seems like your defending Bush here geek. And it's a valid point to an extent. Here's another:

I think what people are missing is that the Democrats are increasingly seen as the party of the urban elite. They have lost touch. This campaign was built on criticism, not education. Rather than lay out a clear plan, they simply harped on the Republican plan.

OR this:

The Democrats have a serious perception problem when it comes to people outside of the urban areas that they need to address beyond just criticizing the Republicans.

I mean, I could find countless others but it would take up pages of this forum. if this isn't defending the GOP I don't know what is. You may have voted for an Indy, but you are sounding more republican with every post. Nowhere have I seen you mention anything that you actually like about the demo party. Whereas you are constantly vouching for the GOP, Bush, and his cabinet. What am I supposed to think?

What I was trying to say in the first quote is that things are much different after this election than they were after the last one. Prior to 2000, I hever heard the nasty rhetoric from the Democrats, the hate, the vitriol, the mean-spiritedness that they had attributed to the right a decade earlier. The Democrats started sounding like Newt Gingrich's "Angry White Men". But, I could understand that it came from bitterness and frustration. Loosing the presidency while winning the popular vote (actually, that might not even really be the case, that came out before all ballots were counted, the election might have been actually closer in 2000 than the numbers being thrown around the Internet. I need to do some research and get the final numbers for all 50 states and territories for 2000) must be VERY frustrating.

The result was an outburst of Democratic arm waiving and shrill rhetoric unlike anything seen before. The problem with that is, particularly with the younger people that really don't have any adult memory of an earlier time, say the Clinton years, that it has become so ingrained now that it is habit. This election was much different. Bush DID win the popular vote by a large margin. What is more important is that he won over 50% of the vote, something Clinton never did. Bush has more of a mandate from the people than any president has had in a long, long time. While people could understand the bitter rhetoric last time and could sympathize a bit with the Democrats then, this time it just looks like sour grapes. THIS time there is no basis for the bitterness other than simply having lost an election. THAT is what I was trying to point out in the first quote. I was trying to say "relax, this time it is legitimate". My point was that if the Dems keep up this kind of talk, they risk alienating even MORE people. People generally don't like sore losers. The Democrats need to show a little more class this time, that is all.

The second quote was spawned by a show I had just seen on CNN. It was some people in the Democratic National Committee doing a little introspective piece on what they need to change. Some of the points raised were that maybe they did a little too much "preaching to the choir" and not enough outreach. Maybe they alienated people are were a little too confident in the rhetoric. Maybe they get a little full of themselves in their grass-roots "turn out the vote" efforts and didn't stop to think that the other side has roots too. They spent a lot of time getting their base of support out while the Republicans were concentrating on expanding their base, particularly in minoroty communities. It was also based on my own observations and those of others that I talked to. The main complaint was that the Democrats were not offering any substance, only criticism. In congress they weren't proposing legislation or working together trying to compromise, they were simply obstructing. The entire message coming from the Democrats was negative. All of their rhetoric seemed designed to rally their own but nothing was reaching out, explaining, welcoming others in for discussion.

The truth is that the Democrats DO have a serious perception problem outside of the cities. Look at Illinois ... Kerry carried the state, but only carried like 3 counties. Delaware, Kerry carried urban New Castle county and that was it. Maryland, Kerry carried Prince George's, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore counties and Baltimore City and that is about it, the entire rest of the state was Bush country.

If all you do is sit around drinking your own kool-aid, listening to your own rhetoric, it is hard to hear what is going on beyond earshot.

The Democrats lost not only the presidential election, they also lost 4 seats in the Senate and possible up to 7 seats in the House depending on some Louisiana runoff elections in traditionally Republican districts. The loss is deeper than just a presidential election.

By pointing out problems with the Democrats I am NOT siding with the Republicans. I am just stating a fact ... the Democrats are loosing ground. I pointed out why I thought that was. People in the heartland have a different set of values. They are more about self-suffiency, individual decisions, lower taxes and smaller government.

Let me put it a little differently ... while housing costs and wages are much higher in the San Francisco Bay area than they are in Abilene, Texas, a box of Wheeties at Safeway or a pair of Levis at Sears or a Chevy is about the same price. When you have people that are earning only $30K-$40K a year paying a much larger portion of their income for food and clothing, jerking another 10% out of their pay for SOMEONE ELSES benefits hurts more. The extra money comes out of "disposable income" for more people in urban areas, maybe they wont be able to put as much in savings ... but it comes out of the hide of the people in the heartland and they resent sending their hard earned to Washington for some politician who is completely out of touch with their values to spend where he needs to spend it in order to buy urban votes.

That is EXACTLY why we must never get rid of the electoral college, by the way. If we go to a purely popular vote, the people in the smaller towns and cities will feel even more disenfranchised than they feel now. The Republicans listen to them, address their issues, talk to them. They trust the Republicans to be more frugal with their money and spend it, in their opinion, more responsibly. The Democrats need to get out there in the heartland and start to listen if they want to gain back lost ground.

[Alpha]

Hey geekster, I know there's a lot going on in this topic right now but I'm truly curious about your response to my fear of federal legislation / judges?

[geekster]

Couple of quick notes ...


Word is circulating that Ashcroft is resigning, possibly later today.

An example of what I was talking about with getting out in the heartland and listening can be seen in Illinois with Obama. His mother is from Kansas. He was raised with Midwestern ideals. He went out into the rural counties and LISTENED and TALKED and didn't just spout rhetoric. AND he carried nearly every damned county in the state.

Look for Obama in 2012 to be a Democratic Party candidate for President and a good candidate, I think.

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S= ... v=EyAzSl3l

[geekster]

Hey geekster, I know there's a lot going on in this topic right now but I'm truly curious about your response to my fear of federal legislation / judges?

Well, I am not too worried about the consitutional ammendment thing because I live in California and I honestly don't think our legislature would ever ratify such a thing. I also don't think they would get 30 states to pass it.

As for federal judges ... people argue that stuff but in order to do so, they must make two assumptions. The first is that the President EXPECTS the court to "legislate via rulings". The second assumption is that the Judge is so close minded to never listen to the merits of the case in front of him and only rule on ideological terms. It also assumes that a judge will never change their views over time.

I am much less worried about potential Bush judicial appointments looking at those that he has proposed so far. Most have been what I would consider to be moderate conservatives. I am not going to get all paranoid until I actually see a nomination. I can't be afraid of monsters in the closet, it is a waste of energy. Let's see who he actually nominates and then ask me my opinion.

Having said that, I will say ONE thing ... there are a lot of open slots in the 9th Circuit. I would actually WELCOME a little conservative balance there. That is one circuit that is just completely wacko.

[dragonfly Jafe]

...we first introduced the Thorax Agent. A nasty little virus...

but the flu vaccine will prevent this, right?

[geekster]

And I will expand just a little on my previous statement. I think having a balance of both liberal and conservative viewpoints is a good and healthy thing. If everyone is touching exactly the same spot on the elephant you aren't going to get a useful overall view or healthy discussion. By having different viewpoints and having these discussed among the judges, you have a chance of getting better rulings, in my opinion. Discourse is healthy as long as it is civil. It expands the horizons of all those who open their mind be they mainly conservative or mainly liberal. A balance is best, I think.

[stuart]

geekster, all due respect, but this wheatland stuff your spouting is just born out by the facts.

They are more about self-suffiency, individual decisions, lower taxes and smaller government.

this race was not won on the above ideals. It was won because bush, and the beloved AG, appeal to fag haters, bible thumpers and those who think baby killers ought to be gassed. All the recent polling spells this out pretty clearly. You are right to point out that the 'stem cell ban' was somewhat empty policy. Still, it was brilliant politics. As was all the gay marriage legislature that passed, 11 out of 11, across the 'heartland'.

and as far as your dear heartlander folks and their concerns about wellfare

for SOMEONE ELSES benefits

a quick study of economic demographics in this country will show you that 'elite urban liberals' like myself, living in blue states, are paying for entitlements. A bulk of which go to the heartland, not back to urban areas. Those red states get more out of the treasury than they put in. Those states would be fucked if there were proportional representation, taxation and distribution in this country.

the people in the smaller towns and cities will feel even more disenfranchised than they feel now.

again, they have no right to feel disenfranchised. The system is working like gang busters for them. Remind me again, how much time did the canditates spend pandering to the 7th largest economy in the world vs, say, Wisconsin? Office of faith based initiatives?

They trust the Republicans to be more frugal with their money and spend it, in their opinion, more responsibly

they show their intellectual laziness here. Bush? Frugal? Libertarians and old school conservatives are apoplectic over bush fiscal policies.



as far as the AGs record. Can you say USAPATRIOT?

[geekster]

Oh, I would not consider Bush to be all that frugal but you also have to understand that a President doesn't decide what to spend. He can decide NOT to spend money authorized by Congress but it is Congress that signs the appropriations bills. The President submits a budget to Congress, Congress throws it away and writes their own. That's the way it works every year.

Also, I will agree that the urban/suburban areas tend to be net tax generators and which side their bread is buttered on is not lost on the politicians.

The demographics of the vote in the various states bears my argument out, though. In California, Bush carried just about every county that doesn't touch the Pacific Ocean.

I am just noticing that the Democratic base of power seems to be shrinking back into the urban centers. It isn't saying it is wrong, just an observation of fact and a possible explaination as to why that might be. Can you think of another reason for it? People in those areas aren't stupid. Iowa, for example, has the highest per capita education of any state in the union. They went Bush. Why? I wouldn't call them raving maniacs.

Why are a larger percentage of African-American and Hispanic voters joining the GOP or crossing party lines and at last voting GOP? Why has the RNC started better supporting African-American and Hispanic candidates in local elections? Because they AREN'T simply spouting off their "angry white men" rhetoric and are LISTENING to people. Or at least that is how it appears.

Please do not confuse my observations of facts with support. I am not a Republican, I do not hate Democrats. I hate blind rhetoric. I hate parrots. I like original thought. I like people that question the status-quo.

The Democrats are loosing power, the Republicans are gaining it. That is a simple fact not a "feeling" on my part or opinion. In California, Arnold was elected by being INCLUSIVE. By supporting the moral issues many Democrats hold dear while also supporting a fiscal philosophy that Republicans could get their hearts around.

I would really like to get good demographic data on why the Democrats are loosing in national and local politics. It isn't limited to just national politics. It is happening in state legislatures too.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ST0675.DTL

Rather than spewing a bunch of piss and vinegar, the Democrats would be better off looking at the basic reasons for this change and start working to reverse it.

[stuart]

GOP got more african american votes this year because of the gay marriage issue. Hispanics as well got on the morality train.

he won on morality concerns

Iowa, for example, has the highest per capita education of any state in the union.

education, bigotry and religious fundamentalism are not mutually exclusive.

also, your description of the spending process is lacking one small item; special appropriations, Iraq for example. The president went to congress and said 'give me billions upon billions of dollars for this or I will tar you as unpatriotic'.

I would alos beg to differ on your assumptions as to why arnold got elected

[geekster]

Oh, and the main reason I can't support the Republicans is their embracing of the radical religious right. If the national party was more like Arnold Schwarzenegger, I could probably be a Republican ... provided they also supported the end of non-addictive drug prohibition.

[geekster]

I am really interested to know your opinion. Why do YOU think Arnold beat McClintock and Bustamonte? Bustamonte was the Democrat and McClintock was the "good old boy" Republican. Arnold had to get a lot fo Democrat votes, how do YOU think he got them?

[samtzu]

Oh, and the main reason I can't support the Republicans is their embracing of the radical religious right. If the national party was more like Arnold Schwarzenegger, I could probably be a Republican ... provided they also supported the end of non-addictive drug prohibition.

Being a displaced Californian I would say that I find Ahnuld more palatible than some of the "good ol' boy" Democrats that the state has ensconsed in Sacramento. He's fresh, he's smart, and he owes nobody anything. He's a very liberal Republican and I wish the Republican party had more people in a power position just like him.

[geekster]

GOP got more african american votes this year because of the gay marriage issue. Hispanics as well got on the morality train.

he won on morality concerns

There is both folly and truth in that depending on how it is taken. Kerry never came out as being pro gay marriage. A quote from the Boston Globe: "Kerry tried to finesse it, saying he believed marriage should be reserved for a man and woman. He said it was up to the states to decide." So Kerry never said he was pro gay marriage.

education, bigotry and religious fundamentalism are not mutually exclusive.

Well, in my experiance in Iowa and Kansas and Nebraska, I haven't found them to be all that "religions fundamentalist". They tend to be pretty mainstream protestant ... Episcopal, Methodist, and Lutheran mostly from most of the churches I saw.

I find your implication that Republican = religions fundamentist + bigot to be interesting. In 2000 Iowa went with Gore. In 2004 it went with Bush. Has some fundamentalist church gone in there and recruited them all? Have they suddenly all become bigots? Or do they possibly believe their old party has become more extreme in its stance on issues? I am asking ... did the people in Iowa change or did the Democratic Party

also, your description of the spending process is lacking one small item; special appropriations, Iraq for example. The president went to congress and said 'give me billions upon billions of dollars for this or I will tar you as unpatriotic'.

Almost. Bush was correct when he chastized Kerry for voting to send troops but not to give them the bread, bullets, and body armor they need once they get there. You don't commit to sending a force that large and expect it to be free. I wouldn't say they would be branded as unpatriotic. Anyone that sends troops and doesn't back up the operation with the cash is either cruel or stupid, but maybe not unpatriotic. Once you decide to go, it is common sense that there is going to be a bill to pay for it. If you are going to cut the money off, pass a resolution demanding the president bring them home first. THEN cut the money off. If a congress member ever decided to send MY son someplace and then decided later to turn off the supplies while they were still there, I would personally hang the bastard.

I would alos beg to differ on your assumptions as to why arnold got elected

Please do, I am interested in your thinking.

[stuart]

Monday, September 27, 2004

The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

D.C. ($6.17)

North Dakota ($2.03)

New Mexico ($1.89)

Mississippi ($1.84)

Alaska ($1.82)

West Virginia ($1.74)

Montana ($1.64)

Alabama ($1.61)

South Dakota ($1.59)

Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

New Jersey ($0.62)

Connecticut ($0.64)

New Hampshire ($0.68)

Nevada ($0.73)

Illinois ($0.77)

Minnesota ($0.77)

Colorado ($0.79)

Massachusetts ($0.79)

California ($0.81)

New York ($0.81)

Two states -- Florida and Oregon
(coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.
quotebox

[Simply Joel]

so, the legislators brought home the pork... doesn't seem like news to me...

yet, i grew up in a political environment so maybe i am numb to some of what seems like news to others.

[geekster]

Oh, and the main reason I can't support the Republicans is their embracing of the radical religious right. If the national party was more like Arnold Schwarzenegger, I could probably be a Republican ... provided they also supported the end of non-addictive drug prohibition.

Being a displaced Californian I would say that I find Ahnuld more palatible than some of the "good ol' boy" Democrats that the state has ensconsed in Sacramento. He's fresh, he's smart, and he owes nobody anything. He's a very liberal Republican and I wish the Republican party had more people in a power position just like him.

I find this site to be somewhat interesting at times. They seem to be pretty thoughtful in their take on things and tend not to repeat party propaganda.

http://www.moderaterepublican.net/ and there are some intersting Republican sites and PACs that should probably get more exposure such as:

http://www.republicansforchoice.com/
and
http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/about.html


There ARE some interesting members of the Republican Party. John McCain is one.

[samtzu]

Thanks, Geekster, I will check it out... and McCain has been through heavier shit than I ever went through. I do respect the man.

[stuart]

you are correct, Kerry tried to split the difference on the gay marriage thing. Gauging from the exit polls, he did the correct thing politically trying to dodge it.

Well, in my experiance in Iowa and Kansas and Nebraska, I haven't found them to be all that "religions fundamentalist". They tend to be pretty mainstream protestant ... Episcopal, Methodist, and Lutheran mostly from most of the churches I saw.

churches did a lot of illegal electioneering this year. Not all homophobes are christian, but most evangelical christians are anti 'the homosexual agenda' As was predicted by some, gavin newsome did not do the dems any favors by putting the gay marriage issue front and center. I respect his bravery and obviously agree with his position but images of gay couples tying the not in SF splattered accross the american media put, quite literally, the fear of god into the 'heartland'. BTW, I grew up in the midwest. We hate fags there.

I don't mean to imply that repulicans=religious fundamentalist, but without that very well organized and quite sizeable voting block the reps would be lost. It is not remarkable that Iowa went from blue to red. Most of the margins of victory were not statisically all the amazing. Iowa is also a swing state and so by definition swings. It's not that they suddenly became bigots, it's that the strategy in this election was to get the issue of gay marriage on the ballots, get the issue in the churches, get the voting guielines from the pulpit, and therefor simply get more bigots to the polls. Energizing the base does not require a change of opinion. The democratic party did not change, the majority of Iowans just don't dig those pesky homos.


the arnold thing...

I think it foolish to give one particualr reason so I will give a couple

1. primarily, grey davis was reviled from both sides of the aisle
now I know we all had the choice of no on recall and yes on whomever, but I think that was a suicidal mixed message for the democrats to try and convey.

2. the energy crisis. while it was not at all Davis' fault, it was pretty easy for folks to tar him with that brush. Oddly enough, if we can extrapolate from arnold's rhetoric, his policies would wind up putting us in the same spot.

3. campaign money. we never would have even had a recall if that poor republican stooge who's name noone will rememeber had not bankrolled the recall petition.

4. and lets not underestimate celebrity and arnold's image as an ass kicker. People were ready for an ass kicker. I am not so sure arnold would have won if a household name democrat was on the ticket but none of those players wanted to break ranks with Davis. Fools.

[geekster]

Thanks, Stuart, for your thoughts. I was kind of hoping for a comparison of McClintock, probably the most powerful of the "establishment" republicans to Arnold and why Arnold mopped the floor with him. Being an ass kicker is a good reason and probably played into it. I think Sam hit on another part of it too when he said Arnold didn't owe anyone anything. He can do pretty much as he wants without the party establishment bullying him in any particular direction. He is seen as an independant thinker and able to stand for his own beliefs. There is also a certain trust factor too. He just seems like the kind of guy that doesn't NEED to weasel because he doesn't NEED to win elections for a living. He is in it because he wanted to be as a service to his adopted state and country. He could go back to acting tomorrow. I think people admire and respect that. I know *I* personally have little respect for people that have done nothing in their adult lives except run for office. Someone who sacrifices a multimillion dollar career to run for a state public office is admirable, in my
opinion.

Oh, and Sam ... Rudy Giuliani is another name that comes to mind when I think of moderate Republicans.

I don't even like some aspects of the Libertarian party. They are too isolationist for me. There really isn't a party in our current political landscape where I would feel completely comfortable. Maybe I would be better off working toward change in the Republican Party. I am not gay but I would have no problems joining with the Log Cabin folks and fighting for greater acceptance and understanding.

[Rian Jackson]

Interesting.....

Kerry Won...
Greg Palast
November 04, 2004
Excerpted from TomPaine.com


---Kerry won. Here are the facts.---

I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.

Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.

So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.

Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. [See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November 1.]


---Whose Votes Are Discarded?---

And not all votes spoil equally. Most of those votes, say every official report, come from African-American and minority precincts. (To learn more, click here.)

We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count. That's because the official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, excluded 179,855 spoiled votes. In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely-leaving a 'hanging chad,'-or was punched extra times. Whose cards were discarded? Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks. (To read the report from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, click here .)

And here's the key: Florida is terribly typical. The majority of ballots thrown out (there will be nearly 2 million tossed out from Tuesday's election) will have been cast by African American and other minority citizens.


---The Impact Of Challenges---

First and foremost, Kerry was had by chads. But the Democrat wasn't punched out by punch cards alone. There were also the 'challenges.' That's a polite word for the Republican Party of Ohio's use of an old Ku Klux Klan technique: the attempt to block thousands of voters of color at the polls. In Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, the GOP laid plans for poll workers to ambush citizens under arcane laws-almost never used-allowing party-designated poll watchers to finger individual voters and demand they be denied a ballot. The Ohio courts were horrified and federal law prohibits targeting of voters where race is a factor in the challenge. But our Supreme Court was prepared to let Republicans stand in the voting booth door.


---Enchanted State's Enchanted Vote---

Now, on to New Mexico, where a Kerry plurality-if all votes are counted-is more obvious still. Before the election, in TomPaine.com, I wrote, "John Kerry is down by several thousand votes in New Mexico, though not one ballot has yet been counted."

How did that happen? It's the spoilage, stupid; and the provisional ballots.

CNN said George Bush took New Mexico by 11,620 votes. Again, the network total added up to that miraculous, and non-existent, '100 percent' of ballots cast.

New Mexico reported in the last race a spoilage rate of 2.68 percent, votes lost almost entirely in Hispanic, Native American and poor precincts-Democratic turf. From Tuesday's vote, assuming the same ballot-loss rate, we can expect to see 18,000 ballots in the spoilage bin.

Spoilage has a very Democratic look in New Mexico. Hispanic voters in the Enchanted State, who voted more than two to one for Kerry, are five times as likely to have their vote spoil as a white voter. Counting these uncounted votes would easily overtake the Bush 'plurality.'


To read the article in full, click here: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php

---

Contact: [email protected]

View Greg Palast's BBC Television film, "Bush Family Fortunes," available on DVD from The Disinformation Company at http://www.gregpalast.com/bff-dvd.htm

To receive Greg's investigative reports click here: http://www.gregpalast.com/contact.cfm
============================================
If you would like to have your e-mail address removed from this mailing list. Cut and paste the following URL into your browser address bar. This will automatically remove from the mailing list and you will receive no further mailings.
http://www.gregpalast.com/emailremove.cfm?id=20312

[Simply Joel]

I don't even like some aspects of the Libertarian party. They are too isolationist for me. There really isn't a party in our current political landscape where I would feel completely comfortable. Maybe I would be better off working toward change in the Republican Party.

G'ster... you mean you aren't going to run off to canada to voice your disapproval!

sorry, i couldn't help myself.

[blyslv]

attack ships on fire!

...off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain.

SWOON!