Letters to the Editor
-
Batteries not included. Some assembly required.
After the implosion, standing ankle deep in the toxic sludge of the miscreants, how and around what will they reassemble themselves this time? Build, they must -- if only to keep the creeps in my Democratic Party in check.
-
nerfzilla
you reinforce the echo-chamber thing by overlooking the complexity of the Bush-Gore decision(s) by the Supreme Court; the echo chamber necessarily cannot bear to examine the role of the Fla court in taking legislating-from-the-bench to a whole new level; the Gore demand for selective recounts and the wholesale disenfranchisement of a whole class of voters (the absentee-ballot military) is also required to be overlooked. nevertheless, the critical decision among the several in B v. G was indeed 7-2- and it is this rather lopsided, bipartisan vote that the echo chamber screams out of existence.
the whole stolen-election 'meme' further ignores the careful examination by numerous parties that wanted a Gore victory- you know, objective journalists- who came with bitter regret to the conclusion that even if Gore had had his selective recount, he'd still have lost Florida.
sorry to mention facts: back to the echo chamber and its Big number of little Lies...
-
Why the GOP will not implode
in reading this, keep in mind I've never voted for a Republican.
Democrats are the one's who have and will continue to implode. The reason is simple:
The GOP wants to win and will choose winning over losing.
Democrats choose idealism (at any cost) over winning.
Case in Point: The GOP will win this year because the wife of a former President chose to ride her husbands coat tails for an attempt at the White House. Women, who would vote for ANY woman have rallied to her side (e.g. Joan, the Editor of Salon).
This has split the party, and Democrats CANNOT win in 2008. If Hillary is the nominee; the African American vote will stay home. Dems cannot win without them.
If Obama is the nominee, Hillary's voters will stay home, peeved that "they" stole the nomination for a woman (or as Bill likes to say: they're beating up a "girl")
So in the best chance the Dems have had in history, they have managed to lose again.
The Democratic Party is too lame to actually govern.
-
Choices
" The GOP wants to win and will choose winning over losing.
Democrats choose idealism (at any cost) over winning.
Case in Point: The GOP will win this year because the wife of a former President chose to ride her husbands coat tails for an attempt at the White House. Women, who would vote for ANY woman have rallied to her side (e.g. Joan, the Editor of Salon)."
Interesting point. I do agree that Republicans will choose power over morality and ethics any day. As a completely amoral party that worships power over all else, they certainly have reached an apex of conduct.
Second point: Denigrating Hillary Clinton for "riding the coat tails" of her spouse into the White House appears to be pretty thin coming from a political party that worships Geroge W. Bush, who never got into a school, or got a job, in his life without leading off with, "Daddy says to say 'Hi!' ".
-
@Quirky Jerk
You're entirely correct about the parties being "empty vessels." But where you see it as a liability, I see it as an opportunity. It's how democracy works.
If you think it will change because of a third party you're exactly the kind of ideologue I've been talking about for months. Before you'll accept real politics you'll keep chasing a dream that doesn't and won't ever exist. In the meantime the rest of us get stuck with Nixon, Bush, and probably McCain next.
During the 60's, while the politically minded were out trying to do something the ideologues were waiting for their perfect world that would be up to their standards. In my circle, the most uncompromising became university professors where they could spend their life preaching to a captive audience.
If I'm correct, you helped form a sort of "liberal elite" that thinks witholding works--even if it has been proven again and again it doesn't. Recent Republicanism is a perfect example, with Rove as the executor and Bush the poster boy.
My philosophy is the opposite of yours. The necessity is to vote for the candidate who most approximates ones views in an entirely imperfect system, which by successive approximation arrives at a consensus that serves a more enlightened minority.
The kind of "third party" self-rightousness you advocate simply turns power over to those who know how to make government work in their favor. In our lifetime that has been the right wing and it threatens to get worse if ideologues on the fringe are allowed to prevail.
But maybe I misread you and you believe there is a real difference between the parties this time, and you plan to vote accordingly--not letting personality get in the way, of course.
-
Just keep this in mind
Results from Pennsylvania:
Exit polls showed Obama losing 70 percent of Catholics, 58 percent of white Protestants and 62 percent of gun owners.
So much for all those who said his silly "bittergate" comments would have no effect.
Wait 'til November! Sidney has the wrong party imploding.
-
@rafewalker
nerfzilla
you reinforce the echo-chamber thing by overlooking the complexity of the Bush-Gore decision(s) by the Supreme Court; the echo chamber necessarily cannot bear to examine the role of the Fla court in taking legislating-from-the-bench to a whole new level; the Gore demand for selective recounts and the wholesale disenfranchisement of a whole class of voters (the absentee-ballot military) is also required to be overlooked. nevertheless, the critical decision among the several in B v. G was indeed 7-2- and it is this rather lopsided, bipartisan vote that the echo chamber screams out of existence.
the whole stolen-election 'meme' further ignores the careful examination by numerous parties that wanted a Gore victory- you know, objective journalists- who came with bitter regret to the conclusion that even if Gore had had his selective recount, he'd still have lost Florida.
sorry to mention facts: back to the echo chamber and its Big number of little Lies...
clearly you are a serious person by opening up and misspelling my screen name. nevertheless, i will address your statement, since you are completely wrong. if you want, we can debate your points re: gore selective recounts, military ballots, and Florida Supreme Court judicial activism. none of that really is involved in the case (accept for Florida Court activism). nonetheless, the crucial part of the decision is the stopping of the recount, not the equal protection violation. all nine of them could have found an equal protection violation, but allowed the recounts to move forward, and there would have been no debate. in fact, as I said, they were certainly adjudicating something properly before them in the equal protection clause claim (which actually only came up in oral argument, and if one is cynical, only signed onto by Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas, cause they knew there was no way in hell O'Connor and Kennedy were going support their ridiculous Article II, Section I clause 2 argument), but that had nothing to do with stopping the recounts. i haven't ever heard your "echo chamber" get in a fit about whether equal protection was violated - its upset about not counting the ballots. again, only five votes for that.
those concerned with jurisprudence worry (rightfully) about the equal protection holding, because, as i said, only Georgia (I think) has an electoral system where all votes are cast on the same type of machine, and therefore all votes are subject to the same rate of error. the truth is there is certainly an equal protection violation on paper in the case, but what solution is there to the problem - the only one i can think of is federally mandated standards, and the same type of voting machine required in every state. Otherwise, there will always be discrepancies in the error rate of vote counting between jurisdictions. the potential bag of worms opened by an equal protection claim on the method of recounts is enormous. the most damning aspect of the case is Kennedy's "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." 581 US 98, 109. The Supreme Court seldom decides a case that has no value as precedent. The only reason you do this is so you can get the result you want now, and not have to deal with the consequences of bad law. I didn't criticize the logic of the equal protection holding, only its practical effects.
Furthermore, whether or not Gore would have won is irrelevant in determining whether Bush v Gore is good law. I never made a claim one way or another about what would have happened, i only said it is terrible jurisprudence - on a very short list of the worst decisions of all time, with Dred Scott. i don't see how i could possible overlook the complexity of the case when you don't seem to know what the final vote tally was.
So I am sorry, you have not inserted any facts into this discussion. indeed, quite the opposite of the echo chamber you claim to be in, it seems you are the one who can't let go of lies. there were only five votes to stop the recounts - and only three to say the Florida Courts acted improperly - and those are facts.