Vote to impeach Bush

[Colleen Thomas]

And if Kerry had won, there would be just as many 'centrists' with a 'right' leaning bitching about that.

But that's cool. It's what democracy's all about.

Remember the Dixie Chicks? What happened to them? That went largely unchallenged.

The thing is, to a lot of people, Bush is a very scary person. Hell, he scares the living shit out of me. People tend to over-react when they're scared.

And that applies to all sides.

The Chicks authored their own situation, I have no sympathy. If you are U-2 or Rage against the Machine or Nine Inch Nails, you can prety much speak out in an anti-establisment manner and if anything, you endear yourself to most fans.

If you are a country singer, and you aren't happy with the government, especially when it's on a war time footing, you had best STFU.

Everyone has a right to speak their mind of course, but when you are in the entertainment bussiness, where your revenue depends on your popularity, you are well advised to consider what you say. The Chicks showed an appalling lack of appreciation for the sensibilities of their fans. Country fans, by and large, aren't war protestors.

I, personally, won't ever purchase an album or in any other way support them financially. They have a right to free speech. I have a right to disagree. I also have the freedom to not support them with my money, in an exercise of my freedom of expression.

A lot of people seem to miss the point in free spech. The point is the government won't abridge your right. There is no corrolarry that people can't disagree with you or take any action within the bounds of the law to make their displeasure known. There is absolutely no obligation of people to continue to support you finnancially in deference to your freedom of speech. Many celebrities seem to believe the right of freedom of speech confers some kind of blanket immunity to consequences. It isn't so.

 

[rgraham666]

True Colleen, if you think only the government can abridge the right to freedom of speech.

But it can be abridged in many other manners. You have the right not to buy Dixie Chicks albums. But I don't believe it was a good thing to have people bring their Chicks CDs to a place, pile them up and have a bulldozer run over them.

Especially when the radio station behind that particular act was owned by a chain whose CEO had close ties to the Bush family.

Oh well, democracy isn't easy and the most fragile of all the various governmental systems. It also isn't well suited to human nature. But it's the only one that really offers some measure of input to everybody. If our ability to speak out for any reason is lessened, our freedom will vanish.

Not that many people care, it will only be 'those people' who will no longer be free.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

True Colleen, if you think only the government can abridge the right to freedom of speech.

But it can be abridged in many other manners. You have the right not to buy Dixie Chicks albums. But I don't believe it was a good thing to have people bring their Chicks CDs to a place, pile them up and have a bulldozer run over them.

Especially when the radio station behind that particular act was owned by a chain whose CEO had close ties to the Bush family.

Oh well, democracy isn't easy and the most fragile of all the various governmental systems. It also isn't well suited to human nature. But it's the only one that really offers some measure of input to everybody. If our ability to speak out for any reason is lessened, our freedom will vanish.

Not that many people care, it will only be 'those people' who will no longer be free.

I don't know Rg. It is, at it's heart, protest. Should they have stolen the Cd's to bulldoze, different story. If they already owned them, well it is their property to dispose of as they wish.

In the end, I think this was one of those times where discrection would have been the better part of Valor in expressing her opinion. While public statements agaisnt the president were likely to draw applause from liberals, they don't tend to be the major purchasers of country music. I suspect much of thebacklash here, has as much to do with fans feeling they meant nothing to the entertainers as much as any pro-bush executives did.

 

[rgraham666]

We'll see, Colleen.

I'll confess to not being hopeful. The gap between the 'sides' seems to have been widened to the point where only shouting can cross it.

And the gap seems to be widening to the point where only ballistics can cross it.

I'm not at all sure this is going to end well.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

We'll see, Colleen.

I'll confess to not being hopeful. The gap between the 'sides' seems to have been widened to the point where only shouting can cross it.

And the gap seems to be widening to the point where only ballistics can cross it.

I'm not at all sure this is going to end well.

There has always been a divide, between liberals and conservatives, over the precept of what America is all about. That divide, in years past, usually centered on specific policy, and usually devolved to private wars, waged by a small but dedicated corps, to whom the issue became central. Gun nuts vs. the anti-gun lobby. Pro life vs. Pro choice. Welfare state vs. Lazie faire capitalism. Enviornmentalists vs. Bussiness.

These skirmishes involved a lot of people who weren't commited, but were affected, but by and large, they were waged by the true believers.

The current schism, cannot be boiled down to a hot button topic, and left to the extremists while the rest of us get on with our lives this time. A basic definition is being argued now, rather than a policy that effects that definition.

I find the Liberal plan for this nation no less repugnant than the Neo-con "Back to the 50's!" program. I suspect, I am in the minority, in that I don't have one of these two competing worldviews as my own.

In this climate, it is really the politicians who win. They can pretty much get away with anything, so long as they know which view their core holds and pander to it. That lack of accountability, at the highest levels of our government, may prove to be the most odious result of the blue vs. red conflict.

 

[rgraham666]

Unfortunately Colleen, authourity and responsibility have been separated from each other for quite a while now. And not just in politics.

Understandable, humans love the power, and taking the credit. But they don't like taking the blame, or any real risks.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Unfortunately Colleen, authourity and responsibility have been separated from each other for quite a while now. And not just in politics.

Understandable, humans love the power, and taking the credit. But they don't like taking the blame, or any real risks.

I can't remember a time when there was such a lack of acountability though. As recently as Clinton's administration Newt paid the price for talking out both sides of his mouth. Now? Short of proof you're an alien, intent on world domination, I don't think there is much that our senators & reps think is out of bounds for them.

 

[rgraham666]

A lot of things contribute to that, Colleen.

There's the overriding impulse of ideology. Since the goal is pure and noble, it follows by their thinking that anything they do is pure and noble, or at least necessary. They don't want to remove health care from 900,000 kids, but they really have no choice since government must be shrunk.

And, in spite of the constant complaints about 'liberal media' most news is controlled by people who support the Shrubbies. No hard questions are going to be asked, or chased.

The internet, in many ways, is not helping. In spite of it's ubiquitousness, not many people get their information from it and those who do often only get one aspect of an event. They use it to reinforce their prejudices, not to learn what's really happened.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

A lot of things contribute to that, Colleen.

There's the overriding impulse of ideology. Since the goal is pure and noble, it follows by their thinking that anything they do is pure and noble, or at least necessary. They don't want to remove health care from 900,000 kids, but they really have no choice since government must be shrunk.

And, in spite of the constant complaints about 'liberal media' most news is controlled by people who support the Shrubbies. No hard questions are going to be asked, or chased.

The internet, in many ways, is not helping. In spite of it's ubiquitousness, not many people get their information from it and those who do often only get one aspect of an event. They use it to reinforce their prejudices, not to learn what's really happened.

Liberal biase in the media is pretty strange. I totally subscribe to the idea most of the reporters & editors are liberal, in some cases obviously so. Dan Rather & Mary Mapes, with their pre election hatchet job spring readily to mind. At the same time, the executives and most likely the senior editors are solidly conservative.

The internet is a great tool for those who wish to learn, but it suffers the same pitfalls as regular media outlets. If you only use it to reinforce your preceptions, you can do so, in the same manner a neo-con might only watch fox or a liberal might only read the mirror.

I don't believe the media is the rimary culprit though. I think part of it is just a plain old fatalistic apathy, we don't expect much of our elected officials any more. I also think, there is a damned if you do-damned if you don't mentality setting in. This last election, was to me the epitome of that.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Politics aside, their have been a few incidents of treason and anti-democratic behavior I would like investigated in fantasy world where everything isn't political game motivated and people actually took responsibility for their actions.

The people who revealed Plame, regardless of her impending retirement or how "well known" she was on the Inside. She was still an anti-terrorism covert agent and that act cost a lot of intelligence infrastructure in that field and possibly set us back at least a couple of years in the currently most important field for intelligence.

The idiots who decided outing the Al-Queda double agent for political gain was a good idea. Regardless of malice or stupidity being the prime motivator, that was an act of treason wherein our intelligence in a particularly caustic field was compromised and our main source of credible intelligence was not only sacrificed, but sacrificed in a way that would make other possible double agents too wary to side with us again and the Al-Queda leadership more wary to other possible traitors. A lose-lose situation.

The completion of blackboxvoting.org's investigation to be finished without all the stonewalling in Florida and Ohio (the investigation in Texas was both kindly regarded and free, but they've been amassing lawyers and shredding documents in the battleground states, to me this spells Watergate fishy) and for it to be honestly regarded when the whole process is over instead of the partisan dog fight that will erupt. Trusting our electoral process is key to having a stable democracy and if people tampered with that like they did in Watergate, then they should be punished like back then and all flaws and bypasses should be removed from the systems before they are used again. This is not a "Gee, I hope Kerry won so we can put him in office, cause we can't" but rather a "if democracy was compromised, let us punish the offenders who compromised it."



This isn't related to impeaching Bush, which shouldn't be an issue unless it's revealed like Nixon that he was personally involved in one of the three issues listed above. Only then is he worthy of being impeached.



But then sanity isn't welcome in Polar America and these three key issues of possible treason have been and will be lost in the floatsam and jetsam of political bickering. And wrong and immoral and unjustified as the war in Iraq may possibly be, I don't believe there is any precedent for it being an impeachable offense. Even if the war was just an Imperialist Action, it's not a form of treason against the US. It may be bad foreign policy, but it's not treason of any level or form.



Okay, serious politiconess over, back to the ennui of the disillusioned as is the hallmark of my generation.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I don't believe the media is the rimary culprit though. I think part of it is just a plain old fatalistic apathy, we don't expect much of our elected officials any more. I also think, there is a damned if you do-damned if you don't mentality setting in. This last election, was to me the epitome of that.

The sentiment of the age:

"What?!? I don't know how they do it in your Fisher-Price country, but here in America this freak show is how our politicians make up for the next four years of fuckin' us in the ass." -R.K. Milholland in his comic strip Something Positive

 

[Boxlicker101]

Politics aside, their have been a few incidents of treason and anti-democratic behavior I would like investigated in fantasy world where everything isn't political game motivated and people actually took responsibility for their actions.

The people who revealed Plame, regardless of her impending retirement or how "well known" she was on the Inside. She was still an anti-terrorism covert agent and that act cost a lot of intelligence infrastructure in that field and possibly set us back at least a couple of years in the currently most important field for intelligence.

The idiots who decided outing the Al-Queda double agent for political gain was a good idea. Regardless of malice or stupidity being the prime motivator, that was an act of treason wherein our intelligence in a particularly caustic field was compromised and our main source of credible intelligence was not only sacrificed, but sacrificed in a way that would make other possible double agents too wary to side with us again and the Al-Queda leadership more wary to other possible traitors. A lose-lose situation.

The completion of blackboxvoting.org's investigation to be finished without all the stonewalling in Florida and Ohio (the investigation in Texas was both kindly regarded and free, but they've been amassing lawyers and shredding documents in the battleground states, to me this spells Watergate fishy) and for it to be honestly regarded when the whole process is over instead of the partisan dog fight that will erupt. Trusting our electoral process is key to having a stable democracy and if people tampered with that like they did in Watergate, then they should be punished like back then and all flaws and bypasses should be removed from the systems before they are used again. This is not a "Gee, I hope Kerry won so we can put him in office, cause we can't" but rather a "if democracy was compromised, let us punish the offenders who compromised it."

This isn't related to impeaching Bush, which shouldn't be an issue unless it's revealed like Nixon that he was personally involved in one of the three issues listed above. Only then is he worthy of being impeached.

But then sanity isn't welcome in Polar America and these three key issues of possible treason have been and will be lost in the floatsam and jetsam of political bickering. And wrong and immoral and unjustified as the war in Iraq may possibly be, I don't believe there is any precedent for it being an impeachable offense. Even if the war was just an Imperialist Action, it's not a form of treason against the US. It may be bad foreign policy, but it's not treason of any level or form.

Okay, serious politiconess over, back to the ennui of the disillusioned as is the hallmark of my generation.

In the first two cases, the info was leaked to the press who then printed it, loudly proclaiming their mantra The people have a right to know. We are the press, above the law and you can't touch us.

Personally, I think the persons who did the leaking were traitors but those who actually made the info public were too, and even moreso. Responsible journalism would certainly preclude such action.

I don't know who the last group you mentioned is. If it is Michael Moore or somebody like him, with his own agenda, nobody owes them any help and it might even be a patriotic act to interfere with them and to give them false data.

You mentioned "tampered with that like they did in Watergate." I've heard a lot about Watergate, although not for a long time, but I have never heard or read anybody say it included tampering with the vote. That's what the Dems. and JFK did when they won in 1960, especially in Chicago, and other times as well.

When I first read of the Watergate breakin in 1972, I considered it to be part of the ordinary groin-kicking and eye-gouging of politics. Some individuals were arrested for the breakin but Nixon was not one of them. The media trumpeted it and everything else they could find out because of their hatred of Nixon and the Dems. loudly screamed "FOUL" at every opportunity because that was their only chance of winning, after nominating a lunatic. McGovern carried Mass. and Washington DC that year but even lost his home state of So. Dakota.

By the way, Nixon has been dead for some time and I am sure he was not personally involved in any of the events you mentioned.

 

[Kassiana]

But there is a difference between a musical piece and banging a gong. At some point you learn from what it is (in this case, the democratic party) and you move on...

--Apparently the Republican party hasn't learned, though, because there's still as much (or more) Clinton bashing now that he's been out of office for FOUR FREAKING YEARS. Any time I dare say that the current President's doing something wrong, I get some neo-con Republican saying, "Well you supported Clinton, you sorry-ass liberal." (For what it's worth, I didn't. In fact, my only serious war protest, involving me going to Washington, D.C., was against Clinton's war on Kosovo.)

Could you please tell the Republicans that (a) most Leftists in this country didn't support Clinton and that (b) it'd be better to defend the current President than to bash a former one? Thanks.

I am an independant

--Good for you. I'm a Socialist. ::ducks to avoid the "tolerance" and "love" thrown her way::

 

[Colleen Thomas]

--Apparently the Republican party hasn't learned, though, because there's still as much (or more) Clinton bashing now that he's been out of office for FOUR FREAKING YEARS. Any time I dare say that the current President's doing something wrong, I get some neo-con Republican saying, "Well you supported Clinton, you sorry-ass liberal." (For what it's worth, I didn't. In fact, my only serious war protest, involving me going to Washington, D.C., was against Clinton's war on Kosovo.)

Could you please tell the Republicans that (a) most Leftists in this country didn't support Clinton and that (b) it'd be better to defend the current President than to bash a former one? Thanks.


--Good for you. I'm a Socialist. ::ducks to avoid the "tolerance" and "love" thrown her way::

It works both ways. Most times a republican bashing Clinton is in response to a liberal invoking him. It isn't all that strange, as Clinton is the only democrat to hold the office in a while you would invoke, unless you would like to return to the Carter years. That said, he wasn't god, but he is held up as an almost diety by many liberals. Within this very thread, you will find liberals explaing that the Great Bill, had the right to perjure himself, since the question shouldn't have been asked.

Republicans will bash as long as liberals invoke. Liberals will invoke as long as republicans bash. It's reciprocal, and selecting one of the two sides to blame, ignores the fact that there is group dynamic to it.

Not all of Bush's detractors were Clinton suporters, but the vast majority were. Consequently, the response to negative comments to Bush is likely to draw the accusation you were. You may add to this the vicious sterotyping by the left of Bush supporters. The constant refrain of anyone who supported Bush is an inbred redneck homophobic zenophobic racist is not likely to encourage civil debates. People who are under varbal assault are quite likely to reply defensively. Since the GOP's mantra seems to be the best defense is a good offense, this too isn't very hard to understand.

If you feel you need to step into the ring, in the current climate, you can expect attack. From one side or the other or both. From your posts, I would hazard to guess you are pretty partisan, so you can expect even more in the way of atacks. There are very few left in the middle, even moderates have been forced to move away from center recently. When you opine on politics, it's pretty naive to think you won't get a dose of rhetoric. If you are strongly partisan, that is going to go double.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It works both ways. Most times a republican bashing Clinton is in response to a liberal invoking him. It isn't all that strange, as Clinton is the only democrat to hold the office in a while you would invoke, unless you would like to return to the Carter years. That said, he wasn't god, but he is held up as an almost diety by many liberals. Within this very thread, you will find liberals explaing that the Great Bill, had the right to perjure himself, since the question shouldn't have been asked.

Republicans will bash as long as liberals invoke. Liberals will invoke as long as republicans bash. It's reciprocal, and selecting one of the two sides to blame, ignores the fact that there is group dynamic to it.

Not all of Bush's detractors were Clinton suporters, but the vast majority were. Consequently, the response to negative comments to Bush is likely to draw the accusation you were. You may add to this the vicious sterotyping by the left of Bush supporters. The constant refrain of anyone who supported Bush is an inbred redneck homophobic zenophobic racist is not likely to encourage civil debates. People who are under varbal assault are quite likely to reply defensively. Since the GOP's mantra seems to be the best defense is a good offense, this too isn't very hard to understand.

If you feel you need to step into the ring, in the current climate, you can expect attack. From one side or the other or both. From your posts, I would hazard to guess you are pretty partisan, so you can expect even more in the way of atacks. There are very few left in the middle, even moderates have been forced to move away from center recently. When you opine on politics, it's pretty naive to think you won't get a dose of rhetoric. If you are strongly partisan, that is going to go double.

Good morning, Collie, TGIF
I'm not sure what you mean when you say there are few left in he middle. I believe there are many like me who support one side on some issues and the other side on others. I am a strong, even a fanatical supporter of the whole Bill of Rights, including the First and the Second Amendments. Although I don't wish to do so, I believe it is my right to walk the streets with a loaded pistol in my pocket or thrust through my belt. I believe that people, and I mean all people, even government employees or elected officials, have a right to speak out against government policies they dislike. I believe government has no business promoting religion anywhere or at anytime and that means no prayer of any kind in schools, including the Pledge of Allegiance, and no biblical passages in public buildings.

I believe government should get off the people's backs and out of their bedrooms, and what happens there is nobody's business except the consenting adults who are involved. I believe women have the right to choose to abort a pregnancy, for whatever reason. I believe in personal liberties and in personal responsibilities. I think of welfare, as it was in the seventies and eighties, as a waste of taxpayer's money and as a polyester-lined trap for the recipients.

I am also opposed to government censorship of what adults read and write but that goes without saying.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

In the first two cases, the info was leaked to the press who then printed it, loudly proclaiming their mantra The people have a right to know. We are the press, above the law and you can't touch us.

Personally, I think the persons who did the leaking were traitors but those who actually made the info public were too, and even moreso. Responsible journalism would certainly preclude such action.

I don't know who the last group you mentioned is. If it is Michael Moore or somebody like him, with his own agenda, nobody owes them any help and it might even be a patriotic act to interfere with them and to give them false data.

You mentioned "tampered with that like they did in Watergate." I've heard a lot about Watergate, although not for a long time, but I have never heard or read anybody say it included tampering with the vote. That's what the Dems. and JFK did when they won in 1960, especially in Chicago, and other times as well.

When I first read of the Watergate breakin in 1972, I considered it to be part of the ordinary groin-kicking and eye-gouging of politics. Some individuals were arrested for the breakin but Nixon was not one of them. The media trumpeted it and everything else they could find out because of their hatred of Nixon and the Dems. loudly screamed "FOUL" at every opportunity because that was their only chance of winning, after nominating a lunatic. McGovern carried Mass. and Washington DC that year but even lost his home state of So. Dakota.

By the way, Nixon has been dead for some time and I am sure he was not personally involved in any of the events you mentioned.

THe ratfucking was an attempt to circumvent the political process and "stack the decks". Arguably politics as usual but that plus the misuse of intelligence agencies to cover it up were acts directly against the process of democracy as a part and a gross misuse of an agency directly tied to national security as a whole. A hefty crime overall. Nixon was impeached because he had been shown to have ordered the coverup (his role in ordering the specific illegal ratfucking events was likely minimal) which was a gross offense. And you're right about JFK and Chicago, it was also a gross offense against the democratic process.

Blackboxvoting.org is not Michael Moore and co. It set itself up with no partisan bias for who won and planned a full detailed audit of the computerized voting machines no matter who won. They have also been good at trying to get audit records from all states. It's run by Bev Harris. Again, non-partisan though the political climate will likely label them partisan no matter what they eventually discover and I don't see patriotism in ever hiding the results of any election from anyone. Ideally the data would be completely free and open to the public as it is the ultimate public business.

And responsibility for traitorous leaking always lies heaviest on the leaker though a firing should be the most basic response for the one who makes it public. Gross incompetence and endangerment of others is instant firing ground in other careers, so why not in Journalism as well?




And for Colly, the problem is that since our electoral system is two-party many people seem to waste too much time deifying and defending the politicians rather than the views. Ironically, this is because personality seems to count far more in most elections than competence or political viewpoints. Bush, Clinton, and Reagan all got away with so much because they have/had very dynamic everyman personalities and charisma.

I disagree that it is always in response to liberal deifying. Ann Coulter usually has an anti-Clinton comment once a week though the election has allowed her a new blame target in Kerry. I think a lot of it is the fundamental problem that a lot of the current right's momentum has been carried by a segment of anti-government rebellious sentiment and now has the problem that they control the government and have the power. Acting the victim of the liberals in Washington is more difficult now without dwelling in the past.

That aside as a leftie, I've always been sickened by the deifying of Clinton. He was a moderate Republican at best with the morals of Leisure Suit Larry. His only charm was he lucked out to be president when the tech/silicon valley boom was reigning and managed to string it along and save its gains prudentally in a true conservative fashion.

 

[BigAndTall]

--Apparently the Republican party hasn't learned, though, because there's still as much (or more) Clinton bashing now that he's been out of office for FOUR FREAKING YEARS. Any time I dare say that the current President's doing something wrong, I get some neo-con Republican saying, "Well you supported Clinton, you sorry-ass liberal." (For what it's worth, I didn't. In fact, my only serious war protest, involving me going to Washington, D.C., was against Clinton's war on Kosovo.)

Could you please tell the Republicans that (a) most Leftists in this country didn't support Clinton and that (b) it'd be better to defend the current President than to bash a former one? Thanks.


--Good for you. I'm a Socialist. ::ducks to avoid the "tolerance" and "love" thrown her way::

Yeah I know that. And I think that is just as stupid to go after Clinton. I thought much of it when he was president was poor taste also. I did not like a lot of his policies but I never disliked (or liked) the man.


I don't see to many people seriously defending this president, because to be honest, I don't think many conservatives really like him. He was only slightly better than the alternative.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Fuck the poor, heads on spikes, fuckwads?

Colly is right, what happened to civil discourse?

I can agree to disagree, or even argue, but I see no point in insulting mass groups of people. Did one of these people shoot his mother while another saved a baby from a burning building, is all of that unimportant compared to how they voted?

I was a republican, switched to a democrat, watched Farenhiet 911 and decided I wanted no part of THAT. I am an independant, so you can all hate me.

Bush scares me, Kerry scared the hell outa me and I am not kicking a dead horse but stating my views on a public forum.

Its each persons right to spew hatred but you are not going to win an arguement by saying the discussion is stupid, you were forced to read what you didn't want to, and since it was so pointless you had to respond.

Just my opinion.

I didn't need to see Farenhiet 911 to know that I didn't like W. Among a number of other reasons, the cherry on that cake is that stupid fuckin' smirk that's on his face entirely too much of the time. All the other people I've ever met with a smirk like that were used car salesmen. As it turns out, they're in business just to fuck people also. Imagine that; the Presidency of the USA being reduced to a used car dealership with big-boy toys all over the lot and an obnoxious salesman flapping his gums behind the desk.

I totally hear where you're coming from and I'm sure you don't have any reason to give a shit about that. Where the hell was the "None of the Above" option on the ballot? How is it a democracy if you must choose one of them or leave no opinion at all with your vote? I would have rather said that I didn't like any of them then having to choose one of them.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I didn't need to see Farenhiet 911 to know that I didn't like W. Among a number of other reasons, the cherry on that cake is that stupid fuckin' smirk that's on his face entirely too much of the time. All the other people I've ever met with a smirk like that were used car salesmen. As it turns out, they're in business just to fuck people also. Imagine that; the Presidency of the USA being reduced to a used car dealership with big-boy toys all over the lot and an obnoxious salesman flapping his gums behind the desk.

I totally hear where you're coming from and I'm sure you don't have any reason to give a shit about that. Where the hell was the "None of the Above" option on the ballot? How is it a democracy if you must choose one of them or leave no opinion at all with your vote? I would have rather said that I didn't like any of them then having to choose one of them.

Uh, that movie, if you want to call one man's conspiracy psycho-babble a movie, just convinced me that I wanted whoever Michael Moore didn't want. That didn't decide my vote though, I agonized over my decision.

I wanted the democratic party without Kerry, and would have been have been embaressed to live in a country with Edwards as VP.

The none of the above option was not voting at all, I even considered it.

I voted for the man I call stupid and an idiot, hoping that he would learn from his mistakes.

If he does, he will have the backing and the power to make changes, hopefully for the better, while Kerry and Edwards, no matter how well-intentioned, would have floundered and blundered in the eyes of the world, and in my eyes.

I could not accept that as my decision, though if Kerry had won, I would still love my country and not my president, as I do now. The difference iis that I feel GWB, if he chooses, can make changes where Kerry would have been stymied by the political pressure before any changes came up for debate, making him and the democratic presidency, essentially impotent.

I did not vote for the lesser of two evils, with one choice I saw hope, I took it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Uh, that movie, if you want to call one man's conspiracy psycho-babble a movie, just convinced me that I wanted whoever Michael Moore didn't want. That didn't decide my vote though, I agonized over my decision.

I wanted the democratic party without Kerry, and would have been have been embaressed to live in a country with Edwards as VP.

The none of the above option was not voting at all, I even considered it.

I voted for the man I call stupid and an idiot, hoping that he would learn from his mistakes.

If he does, he will have the backing and the power to make changes, hopefully for the better, while Kerry and Edwards, no matter how well-intentioned, would have floundered and blundered in the eyes of the world, and in my eyes.

I could not accept that as my decision, though if Kerry had won, I would still love my country and not my president, as I do now. The difference iis that I feel GWB, if he chooses, can make changes where Kerry would have been stymied by the political pressure before any changes came up for debate, making him and the democratic presidency, essentially impotent.

I did not vote for the lesser of two evils, with one choice I saw hope, I took it.

I really do wish they had a "None of the above" on the ballot. I would have voted for it and expressed my opinion that way. Voting for a third-party candidate might be seen as suporting that person and not voting at all is not making a statement, but voting for "None of the above" is.

I voted against Bush by voting for the other guy. I was torn between two lousy choices and I made up my mind which was the less lousy when I looked W's stupid face during one of the debates and heard him, with his stupid grin and his stupid voice, describe zygotes in a test tube as "LIFE". He must be aware that those that are not chosen will be flushed down a toilet, unless the donors want to keep them, for reasons of their own.

Even so, I don't like the idea of impeaching the fathead unless he does something impeachable.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I didn't need to see Farenhiet 911 to know that I didn't like W. Among a number of other reasons, the cherry on that cake is that stupid fuckin' smirk that's on his face entirely too much of the time. All the other people I've ever met with a smirk like that were used car salesmen. As it turns out, they're in business just to fuck people also. Imagine that; the Presidency of the USA being reduced to a used car dealership with big-boy toys all over the lot and an obnoxious salesman flapping his gums behind the desk.

I totally hear where you're coming from and I'm sure you don't have any reason to give a shit about that. Where the hell was the "None of the Above" option on the ballot? How is it a democracy if you must choose one of them or leave no opinion at all with your vote? I would have rather said that I didn't like any of them then having to choose one of them.

Russia has that option on their ballots and the way it interacts with the whole process in my mind is a good thing. Really our electoral process could do with some tweaking considering the overwhelming majority of people who are utterly disillusioned with it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Good morning, Collie, TGIF
I'm not sure what you mean when you say there are few left in he middle. I believe there are many like me who support one side on some issues and the other side on others. I am a strong, even a fanatical supporter of the whole Bill of Rights, including the First and the Second Amendments. Although I don't wish to do so, I believe it is my right to walk the streets with a loaded pistol in my pocket or thrust through my belt. I believe that people, and I mean all people, even government employees or elected officials, have a right to speak out against government policies they dislike. I believe government has no business promoting religion anywhere or at anytime and that means no prayer of any kind in schools, including the Pledge of Allegiance, and no biblical passages in public buildings.

I believe government should get off the people's backs and out of their bedrooms, and what happens there is nobody's business except the consenting adults who are involved. I believe women have the right to choose to abort a pregnancy, for whatever reason. I believe in personal liberties and in personal responsibilities. I think of welfare, as it was in the seventies and eighties, as a waste of taxpayer's money and as a polyester-lined trap for the recipients.

I am also opposed to government censorship of what adults read and write but that goes without saying.

Hey box,

When I said there are few left in the middle, thats exactly what I meant. This last election, as early as six months before the actual election, both parties switched gears from trying to win undecideds to trying to get more of their core voters out. the reason for that was those who said they were undecided were so pitifully few, they weren't going to make the difference this time around.

There was then and is now, a distinct lack of centrist/moderate voters. Even more, many who fall into that category don't express their opinion with a protest vote, but will, in the end, choose what they see as the lesser of two evils.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

THe ratfucking was an attempt to circumvent the political process and "stack the decks". Arguably politics as usual but that plus the misuse of intelligence agencies to cover it up were acts directly against the process of democracy as a part and a gross misuse of an agency directly tied to national security as a whole. A hefty crime overall. Nixon was impeached because he had been shown to have ordered the coverup (his role in ordering the specific illegal ratfucking events was likely minimal) which was a gross offense. And you're right about JFK and Chicago, it was also a gross offense against the democratic process.

Blackboxvoting.org is not Michael Moore and co. It set itself up with no partisan bias for who won and planned a full detailed audit of the computerized voting machines no matter who won. They have also been good at trying to get audit records from all states. It's run by Bev Harris. Again, non-partisan though the political climate will likely label them partisan no matter what they eventually discover and I don't see patriotism in ever hiding the results of any election from anyone. Ideally the data would be completely free and open to the public as it is the ultimate public business.

And responsibility for traitorous leaking always lies heaviest on the leaker though a firing should be the most basic response for the one who makes it public. Gross incompetence and endangerment of others is instant firing ground in other careers, so why not in Journalism as well?




And for Colly, the problem is that since our electoral system is two-party many people seem to waste too much time deifying and defending the politicians rather than the views. Ironically, this is because personality seems to count far more in most elections than competence or political viewpoints. Bush, Clinton, and Reagan all got away with so much because they have/had very dynamic everyman personalities and charisma.

I disagree that it is always in response to liberal deifying. Ann Coulter usually has an anti-Clinton comment once a week though the election has allowed her a new blame target in Kerry. I think a lot of it is the fundamental problem that a lot of the current right's momentum has been carried by a segment of anti-government rebellious sentiment and now has the problem that they control the government and have the power. Acting the victim of the liberals in Washington is more difficult now without dwelling in the past.

That aside as a leftie, I've always been sickened by the deifying of Clinton. He was a moderate Republican at best with the morals of Leisure Suit Larry. His only charm was he lucked out to be president when the tech/silicon valley boom was reigning and managed to string it along and save its gains prudentally in a true conservative fashion.

Hey Luc,

I wasn't talking about the pundits, talking heads and those who make a living being extremist. It seemed to me Kass was talking about debates with idividuals, people she knows or deals with.

Her experience is seeing a Clinton bashing as the result of her attacking GWB. My experience is getting a lesson in Clinton mythology every time I defend GWB fom the more outrageous character assassinations. Thus, I feel pretty strongly there is a group dynamic involved. I do not usually resort to Clinton comparrisons when I choose to speak out gainst the really stupid and obviously hate filled triades against Bush. But the response to ripping those assertions and demanding supporting evidence, is quite often a lecture in how wonderful Clinton was, usually as a preface to what Kerry Would be doing.

Neither side is innocent. Neither side is wholly guilty. Blaming one or the other, seems pretty short sighted to me. If you don't want Clinton bashed, you have to stop holding him up as something beyond reproach. If you don't want to hear about Clinon as Diety, you need to stop hammering away at what a scum bag he was and deal with criticism in an intellectually and critically honest way, rather than subtrafuge. Enoth people choosing the ethically correct road in debates can put an end to it, but both sides need to take that stand, rather than one or the other.

 

[rgraham666]

Unfortunately a really ethical person would not be elected.

Ethics is complicated and often ends up with a least worst decision. Most of us want simplicity and an absolute good.

An ethical person would speak at length, covering as many bases as they could and would sound unsure of themselves. We prefer sound bites and slogans, consider only the proper bases as worth covering, and want certainty.

An ethical person would be our representative. Most of us want a Leader.

If there are problems in our political system, we need look no farther than ourselves.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Russia has that option on their ballots and the way it interacts with the whole process in my mind is a good thing. Really our electoral process could do with some tweaking considering the overwhelming majority of people who are utterly disillusioned with it.

Imagine that! Russia has a true democracy-based ballot and the US doesn't. Go figure! It seems that we're only allowed to give an honest open opinion at the ballots so long as that opinion agrees with one party or the other.

My humble opinion: They were all a bunch of felchers. They should have all been thrown back and we should have had a new batch to choose from.