Pangloss

Yeah I was responding to the original post, but while I was hunting for it the phone rang and by the time I got around to clicking there were other posts in front of mine. (Don'tcha hate it when that happens?) (grin) That's a real stretch -- I think you need to stop taking your talking points from Moveon.org. The Taliban was directly sponsoring international terrorism, and it was the government of Afghanistan. When Al Qaeda attacked the US, their fate was sealed. They made their bed, they got to sleep in it. The fact that some American company (amongst many others around the world) benefitted from it is GOOD news. Not bad. Phi if you can't see the moral justification in the Afghan war, then I think you need to ask yourself if there are any circumstances under which you could EVER see something done by the right side of the American political spectrum in a positive light, and whether you would have supported the war in Afghanistan if Al Gore had done it.

Right, Sandra Bullock's amusing breakout role. She actually mentions the number of the amendment that changed the constitution to allow that, if I remember correctly. The irony was aimed at Reagan at the time, but you're quite right, it still works very well today.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

The DNC has a fleet of six Gulfstream Vs standing by with a cadre of lawyers ready to leap onto each one of 'em. The RNC is taking more of a wait-and-see approach, I hear, but both parties have already signed up long lists of lawyers willing to jump into the fray.

Thanks for passing that along, atinymonkey. FWIW, I support a constitutional amendment to allow naturalized citizens to run for office. The amendment was always dubious anyway -- something that would never have withstood a Supreme Court constitutionality test if it were a mere law. Specifically, I support the ones that suggest a 20-year term of citizenship prior to running for president. I also believe there should be a clause about this country being the citizen's primary residence.

I've actually gotten that from three different sources now, it's AMAZING how fast that one has spread around the Internet. Very funny stuff. (grin)

A week ago I thought Bush would win. Now I'm not so sure. The pro-Bush poll momentum seems to be waning, and early voting is clearly mostly by Democrats (suggesting that Democrats won the "sign up the most voters" war).

Your vote would mean little more under Colorado's proposed system, for the reasons I outlined above. The way you make your vote count is by seriously considering voting for the other guy.

The Colorado measure is interesting, but it does have some problems, and it's not as simple as a lot of people make it out to be. For one thing, it's not any kind of even-handed split based on district voting or anything like that. It's actually based on percentages of the TOTAL vote. If 55% of the population goes to one candidate, that candidate gets 5 of the 9 electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine, for example, split their votes according to congressional district voting results (the number of electoral votes you get is the same as the number of House members you get, so this makes sense). If your district votes for Kerry, the district's electoral vote goes to Kerry, etc. The reason why this could be a problem for Coloradoans ("Coloradans"?) is that it presents a number of possibilities for statistical anomalies. For example, if the vast majority of the state votes for Bush, but ONE person votes for Kerry, shouldn't one of your electoral votes go to Kerry? What if the results are tied? Who gets the 5? What if one of the candidates gets ONE more vote than the other one, and gets the fifth electoral vote? That would mean that one person effectively represents over half a million people (or at least tens of thousands of voters). It's all probably moot -- polling suggests that the measure will not pass. But it's interesting to speculate on, if nothing else.

Just to clarify, I wasn't aiming that comment at you specifically, Phi. I was responding more to the general tenor of the story as it was played out in the media today (as exemplified by Clinton's stump speech). I probably could have phrased that better. I agree with those who are saying that it was generally a mistake not to send more troops for the occupation, but I hope that by now we've laid to rest the notion that not enough troops were sent for the initial war. Given that it was the same people telling him "more troops" in both cases, perhaps the mistake is understandable. Shinseki was wrong, and it's no wonder the jerk resigned. But as I said, even if you send a MILLION men into Iraq, you don't get to cover all the stockpiles. ALL of them were "known", Phi. Almost NONE of them were covered. These things are like dandelions over there. We've known this for 18 months now. It's a dead horse, being beaten strictly for political reasons, and the lowest political reason at that: TV sound bites.

It has, but it lead me here, so there is that at least.

No offense taken. What I meant was that I'll probably be happier if Bush wins because in spite of all my efforts at objectivity, my emotional core is still slightly to the right. I was raised conservative, and it forms my core ideology. It's hard to shirk that sort of thing, especially given the natural tendency that I think all people have to get more conservative as you grow older. I did go through a strong liberal phase (I call them my "Mondale/Ferraro years", which probably tells you a bit too much about me), but it was fairly brief. I got "woken up" to modern conservatism by guys like Neil Boortz, who's a kick-ass libertarian talk show host, and Rush Limbaugh, whom I've sense realized is a complete joke (but he did help wake me up to the frequent utter stupidity of extreme liberalism). And I voted for Bush in 2000, and while my personal reasons for changing horses in mid-stream are (IMO) valid, I don't think most people's reasons for voting against Bush are valid. Most of them are just plain stupid. I'm up-front about it because I think it would be ridiculous for me to sit here and claim that I'm some kind of pure centrist with no lean either way -- I think that's an ideal *nobody* can ever reach. Anyway, this whole election for me has been an incredible challenge for me, trying to keep my conservative leaning from clouding my centralist judgement. If you'd told me four years ago, or even two years ago, that it would be this hard to me objective about this election, and set aside my emotional prejudgement, I would've said you were nuts. But it was. BTW I agree with y'all about the AWB being pointless. Again, my point was just that they didn't let it expire because it was pointless. They let it expire because the House is under the thumb of special interests. And it continues because we focus so much attention on the presidential election that House members go ignored, often running unopposed. The whole situation is an utter joke, and I'm disgusted with America's behavior in that regard. Anyway, 'nuff said.

What I want to know is: Who in their right mind things that all explosives and weapons would have been secured even if the most extreme (at the large end) troop estimates had been used?

No, just a huge whomping majority of it. Unless you meant the part about the assassins -- I'm sure most folks wouldn't agree with THAT.

And completely out of line. That's the kind of thing I was talking about a few weeks ago when I said that over-the-top opposition to Bush over in Europe actually drives people back to voting for him. Be careful what you wish for.

Up in the Air A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am." The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude. She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican." "I am," replied the man. "How did you know?" "Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me." The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat." "I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?" "Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow now, it's my fault."

I am of two minds on it, still. There's a lot to be said for the argument that the less populated states would be ignored, and this was the sort of thing that bothered our founding fathers to no end. But this is not 1776, and in fact it's not even 1976. Political rallies aren't open to the public -- does anybody here know a single undecided or independent voter who met, or even saw up close, a presidential candidate this year? As far as I know the second debate was the only such opportunity ANYBODY had. The Internet and the media are where these things are played out now. On the other hand, the issue is more than just visitation during campaign cycles. The very first time a president gets elected by promising Californians and New Yorkers a tax cut that the rest of the country cannot have, the whole thing ceases to function. But it doesn't even have to be that obvious -- it could be subtle things, like military base closings or contract awards. And given the already-heavy bias towards those constituencies in the media, who's going to call them on it? I wouldn't expect to see a ringing expose on this by a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism, reporting for Dan Rather at CBS News. I'm still going back and forth on this.

It's not so much the fact that they allowed the AWB to drop, as the fact that they did it deliberately, knowing full well it wasn't what 68% of the people wanted, *specifically* because the gun lobby told them to. It's SIG control of congress that I object to more than anything else. I'd likely be just as angry if it were something NOW told them to do instead of the NRA. (Depending on what "it" was, of course.) Great pic!

My decision is really just based on a few simple things. 1) Neither of these guys are megalomaniacs. They're not going to "push the button". This is not 1937, and I'm confident enough in our checks and balances to protect us for four years, at which time I get a chance to vote again. 2) Politicians make promises. It's our job to hold them to what they say they're going to do. 3) This is the ONLY way we can do so. All I can say beyond that is that John Kerry had better watch his step. I WILL be an undecided voter in 2008 -- no question about it. If he wants my vote in 2008, he will have to keep his promises. That includes: - No new taxes OR tax hikes beyond the rollback of the 2003 tax cut. Period. ANY new/higher federal tax of ANY kind means I vote Republican in 2008. (I guess that would mean that I wouldn't be undecided, but by "undecided" I just mean that I'm not going to be a partisan for either party.) - A new tax cut (he PROMISED this) that lowers taxes for 98% of the population of this country. - A new tax cut that lowers taxes for 99% of all businesses in this country. He PROMISED this. - The deficit MUST be cut in half within four years. PERIOD. - Every single recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Report (which I have a copy of right here on my computer, and it's not going anywhere) must be implemented. Period. - No draft. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/ There's more, but I want to just point out here that I'm not asking for things that he HINTED at, I'm only requiring him to do that which he SPECIFICALLY promised. I'm not asking him to "end our dependence on foreign oil", for example. He didn't promise that -- he promised to work on it. That's fine. I'm not even going to hold his feet to the fire on healthcare. He's put his proposal up, that's fine -- I expect a lot of give-and-take in that deal. But I trust I've made my position clear. I'm not kidding about this -- he breaks his promises, he loses my vote. Period.

The answer to that question seems to be "yes and no". Some things we've gotten a lot better at over the last few decades. Deforestation, for example -- there's more covered acreage now than there was a century ago, or whatever statistic you hear from time to time. On the other hand, general air pollution, e.g. smog, seems to be getting worse. While the actual emissions of cars has improved quite a bit, the *quantity* of stuff getting into the air is astonishing. And cars still account for 75% of air pollution. And we still have a defensive mentality to fight in power companies. Florida Power and Light, for example, will spend millions this year on advertising to tell us how their plants are below EPA requirements. And not *one dime* on direct emissions control. They could put filters in every smokestack they own for a fraction of what they spend on advertising.

Aren't I doing exactly that?

Well I've made my decision. Below is an email I sent out two days ago to all my local friends (and relatives around the country). They all know about my prior support for Bush so I think this will shock quite a few of them. Hell, it shocks me. But that's the way it is. (Aftermath: My wife is a bit upset with me, and doesn't want me to talk to her family about politics until after the election. Ah well.) -------------- I've decide to endorse (for lack of a better term) John Kerry for President, and Betty Castor for Senate. In our House district (21) I'm endorsing the Libertarian candidate, Frank Gonzalez, instead of the Republican Lincoln Diaz-Balart (there is no Democrat running). The main reason for my vote here is the failure of House Republicans to renew the Assault Weapons Ban. Regarding Castor vs Martinez, I was starting to lean towards Martinez, whom I voted for in the primary. He's not a neo-conservative, but he came across as WAY far to the right in the debate with Castor. Castor's kinda uppity-liberal, calling us the "bully of the world", which I don't like, but she has the experience and some decent ideas in general. So that's how I'm voting. Regarding the president.... To be brutally honest, I will likely be a little happier if Bush wins. There's just something about liberalism that crawls up my spine, I admit it. But the truth is, I just can't think of any other way to express my displeasure over the Iraq war, which we should not have done, and the general skewing to the far right that's happened over the last four years. I'm very leery of what's going to happen under Kerry, but he's made his promises, and if he keeps them I'll be happy. Ultimately all we can do in this country is take these people for their word. When they break that word, we are justified in voting them out. Period, end of story. Bush broke his word on numerous issues. Kerry hasn't. Yet. That's what it all boils down to, and that's why I'll be voting for John Kerry on 11/2. I know it probably sounds like I've just hedged my bets here. I honestly haven't -- this really is how I will be voting.

Well I can't do much about that -- you'll think what you like. All I can do is point out that just because one is a centralist doesn't mean they no longer have opinions about specifics. Just because they happen to be different from yours doesn't mean they're going to start sending tithes to Jerry Falwell. At any rate, I am about to prove you wrong: I decided two days ago that I've made up my mind about the election; I'm no longer undecided. I'm endorsing John Kerry for president, and I'll explain why in another thread in a moment. If that doesn't convince you, I don't know what well.

Of course. But by asking me to "admit it" you imply that I was defending the right. I wasn't doing that at all -- I was criticizing Carlin. That's the problem with being an extremist, bud -- you see everyone who doesn't agree with you as the enemy, and begin to make assumptions about their beliefs. Bad, bad idea. I will *never* try to tell people that one side of the political spectrum is *always* wrong. You *always* do. So the more you object to the word "ideologue", the more clearly it labels you. If you don't like that, as I hope you don't, then *change* it. Get off the gravy train and use that noggin of yours. Ideology is worthless -- it's independent thinking that runs this world. If you're an ideologue, your vote doesn't even count. It's undecided folks that matter -- all you're doing is offsetting a far-right ideologue somewhere. You are smarter than that.

Some really fun responses above, especially Sayonara, thanks guys. I was actually ranting pretty hard, but your replies gave me a much-needed chuckle. Come on, Bud, you know better than all that. You're just pushing yourself farther into the hinterlands.