PeterDavid.net

Maryland feels your pain.

Voted Bush because I thought Kerry was a bit worse, though Bush does need a kick in the pants likemost of Washington.....

That's what I don't get... how in the world could Kerry be worse? Who did he bomb? Did his vice presidential choice head up death corp. or shoot someone in the face? After four years of experiencing hell under GWB people still thought Kerry could be worse? WTF?

I think that it wasn't so much that Bush inspired so much confidence in people, but that people were less inspired by John Kerry. GWB's campaign did a masterful job of inspiring fear of changing adminsistrations in the middle of a "war"--one that has no end in sight. I voted for Kerry, but it wasn't because that I knew a lot of great things that made me confident in him, but because GWB was a known quantity and I couldn't think of three things he'd done that I didn't disagree with.

More directly related to your comments, I've read that about 40% of people vote Democrat regardless of who the canidate is and about 40% of the people vote Republican regardless of who the canidate is. The key to national elections is to swing the other 20%. That is where the politics of fear and the attack ads paid off so well. Making people afraid of changing in the middle of a "war," maintaining a constant perceived state of "emergency"...these are some of things that the current administration has used to keep itself in power and it will be the same politics of fear that the Republican Party will use in 2008 to argue that it is too dangerous to allow for changes in the Party Power structure in Washington.

All I can say is that after reading this post, I desperately want to hear someone telling Bush that the London Underground is not a political movement.

"Those are facts, George. I looked them up."

TWL

They were thinking about a constituional amendment banning gay marriage.

Our choices of leaders are more limited than in many other nations. We are locked into a two-party structure, baked in by single-member districts and an archiac presidential electoral vote system (not representative, but winner takes all, state by state). Ironically, when we go around the world promoting democracy, it's for parliamentary-type systems -- no one talks about setting up an Electoral College-type system.

That's why only in America can the candidate with fewer votes win the election! What a country....

"That's why only in America can the candidate with fewer votes win the election! What a country...."

That's not true at all -- recall John Major, who took over as PM after Thatcher lost an internal party battle. No one voted for Major as PM in the previous election, and yet, there he was.

Between purged voter rolls, thrown away voter registrations of democratic voters, rigged and/or hackable voting machines with deliberately unverifible results, how many people believe that bush's election this time is any more legitimate than it was in 2000?

None of the above was not an option.

As for how it's impossible to believe that John Kerry would have been worse...It's not that hard if you use your imagination. Kerry said he would not pull out of Iraq so I see no change there (one could argue that Al qaeda would have been emboldened by Bush's defeat and increased the attacks; one could equally argue that Bush's loss would have forced the legitimate factions to work harder for a solution out of fear of impending USA pullout. We'll never know). I seriously doubt that Kerry planned to spend less on entitlements than Bush does and Bush is plenty bad already.

I saw Kerry as a potential Carter II. With one major exception; Carter was smart enough to run a good campaign. I know that Kerry uses big words and has the sonorous voice of one's least favorite college professor but I don't think there is a whole lot of there there and the campaign gave me no reason to reconsider.

And there is one additional factor that doesn't seem to get much play--after 9/11 the one thing that virtually every person agreed on was that this was just the beginning, that we had entered a new era where terror would become a constant part of our life. We waited for the next shoe to drop. And it never did.

Did Bush have anything to do with that? Probably not, my theory is that while we ignore the terrorists at our peril, they are still too few in number and too god damned stupid to actually do more than occasionally get lucky. But just as Bush would probably have been badly hurt by a constant stream of steady incidents, he was helped by their absence. The world of 2004 was way better than I had expected it to be September 12, 2001. I expect many felt the same way.

Ya know, I voted for Kerry, but that election cost the Democrats my membership.
No, I didn't switch parties. I dropped them. I'm independant.
It was a very very inept way to run a campaign, and it pissed me off to no end.

Travis

None of the above was not an option.

True -- which means it's time once again for me to plug instant runoff voting (third-party voting, preference voting ... whatever the hell you want to call it). The first national candidate who proposes that (and has enough clout that there's at least a chance they'd get it done) will have substantial support from me.

(The issue of voting machines that Michael Brunner raises is another elephant in the room. When the Democratic party asks me for money, at this point I respond "get election reform done first, and we'll talk -- until then, I don't see the point.")

As for how it's impossible to believe that John Kerry would have been worse...It's not that hard if you use your imagination.

With all due respect to my apparent lack of imagination ... yeah, it is. Your two examples, Iraq and entitlements, are making arguments for reasons why he might not have been any better -- but even those aren't really arguments for how he'd have been worse.

And you're ignoring an awful lot of other areas in which Kerry would (IMO, of course) have been clearly better. The environment. Civil liberties (at least, I hope so -- I'm not sure there's any chance he'd have gotten to be worse). Dealing with global warming. Corporate corruption. Not sending professional assholes to the UN.

Now, given the events of '04 Kerry will never see a dime from me again (whenever his group sends me something, I basically write "you took a dive and I'm not giving you a chance to f**k us over again, so leave me alone") -- but yes, it's extraordinarily difficult to envision a world in which his presidency would have been worse than what we've got at the moment.

The world of 2004 was way better than I had expected it to be September 12, 2001. I expect many felt the same way.

I'd agree with that, and you're right that Bush probably benefited from that feeling. So far as I can tell, the world of '04 was better despite Bush's actions and not because of them, but that's certainly a legitimate point of debate.

TWL

Hey, Slobodan Milosevic just died. Wouldn't it be nice if the deaths of people like him came in threes, the way it does for people I like?

The scary thing is that people seem to be more upset about Crash defeating Brokeback Mountain than they were about Bush defeating Kerry.

And you're ignoring an awful lot of other areas in which Kerry would (IMO, of course) have been clearly better. The environment. Civil liberties (at least, I hope so -- I'm not sure there's any chance he'd have gotten to be worse). Dealing with global warming. Corporate corruption. Not sending professional assholes to the UN.

Environment--agreed.

Civil Liberties- I don't see any significant differences. He did vote for the Patriot Act, again, just the other day, right?

In fact, given the risk of what would happen to him if another attack WERE to occur, I wonder if he would not have been even MORE aggressive in surveillance and such. But this is pure speculation on my part.

Dealing with global warming--I don't see anyone really doing anything about this and I'm not entirely sure there is much that can be done. No congress will pass Kyoto or anything like it. Maybe he would have aggressively spent money on the technology that might free us from gasoline powered cars, the only thing I can see that might be helpful but I don't remember that being a big campaign issue.

Corporate corruption.-- Probably, though I can't say that they've been getting away with murder during the last 6 years--seems like more than a few of them are going to jail (in fairness, much of the investigations of these crimes probably started during Clinton's administration). Now if you'd said political corruption...

Not sending professional assholes to the UN-- See, I like John Bolton. And he IS an asshole. I just think that's exactly what the UN needs, or, at least, deserves.

Normally I think that the Democratic Party's tendency to shun losing candidates is a mean spirited one but in Kerry's case I'm right with you, brother. To me, the final nail would be the fact that he is reported to have still had millions in the bank unspent on election day. For what? FOR WHAT?? Was he saving it for the inaugural ball? WTF?

Don't blame me... I didn't vote for him. My *State* didn't vote for him!

Thank God.

I don't mind the right-wingers still having faith in the chimp; he's Their Man and is still on the right side of the issues as far as they're concerned.

It's the aforementioned 20% that I want to punch in the face and scream "I F***ING TOLD YOU SO!" to while they lie on the sidewalk bleeding. Not very enlightened of me but what the hell.

I don't think anyone can honestly say that Kerry was the better choice. When you have to choose between two evils, what wins?

That's why only in America can the candidate with fewer votes win the election! What a country....

That used to happen in New Zealand as well, most notably in the 1978 and 1981 elections. The result was a groundswell of support for a replacement electoral system (similar to the German system). It was introduced in 1996 and after some initial bedding in seems to be working satisfactorarily.

The politicians don't like it, probably because it's been known to take up to three months to form a government and they're scared the public will notice that the country functions perfectly well without one.

My one relief is that the words "President Cheney" are not likely to ever happen, which gives the Dems a big leg up in the next election.

My big fear is that in the next six months, Cheney will find a reason to step out of office (heart attack, Libby drops a dime on him, whatever), and Bush's spinmeisters will groom his new VP for the 2008 elections.

It would be a masterful stroke.

I wish we could hold our heads high, but as I have commented in the past, in 1988, Canadians voted back in (with a majority, yet!) the most inept, corruption-ridden, scandal-plagued, RCMP (sort of like your FBI) investigated administration in this country's history. Then somehow woke un in the next few years and all but wiped out that party, driving it from 177 seats down to 2. So why in perdition didn't they react that way after the FIRST term?

And the next administration wound up with over ten years of high approval ratings for ... well, mostly just continuing on with the same policies the defeated one had brought in.

Voters need to have their heads examined.

In the case of civil liberties ... frankly, even if he were in favor of it I think a still-GOP Congress would have taken great pains to make sure the executive branch didn't have the powers it's currently claiming to have. The outcome would likely have meant no Patriot Act or a far-watered-down version. That, to me, would be a good thing, even if it was happening for doltish reasons.

Normally I think that the Democratic Party's tendency to shun losing candidates is a mean spirited one but in Kerry's case I'm right with you, brother.

The party does have a distinct tendency to eat its own, yes ... but in a case where the victory was clearly X's to lose and, sure enough, X went ahead and did everything possible to lose it, I'm not shedding any tears over any subsequent shunning.

Oddly, however, I'd still support a Gore candidacy in a heartbeat. Possibly because I think he's become a far better individual in the last 5 years.

TWL

I voted Constitution Party.

None of the above was not an option.

Which is why, on this issue, Nevada is the best state in the nation.

I wish every state had the "None of the above" option on their ballot.

I think Lewis Black said it best:

"Republicans, which are a party of bad ideas, and Democrats, which are a party of no ideas."

I think that accurately describes Bush and Kerry, and I guess some people were more inspired by a guy who was boldly dedicated to fucking up than a guy who wasn't boldly dedicated to anything.

I wish every state had the "None of the above" option on their ballot.

Taken to that conclusion in 2004, then the House of Representatives would have decided the election. Bush still wins.

I think the only plus for Kerry over Bush that we would have seen at this point is a deadlock between the Legislative and Executive branches. Kerry's Iraq policy was basically identical to Bush's. Domestically, maybe deficit spending would come down, but that's about it. The economy would likely still be humming along at a decent clip, but perhaps slowed somewhat since Kerry likely would have let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Think about the Dubai deal as another example. Since it's primarily a bureaucratic decision, it would have gone down the same way: Kerry would have warned that we shouldn't dismiss an Arab purchase out of hand, and the opposition party would scream bloody murder over a security risk.

I would expect that a Kerry presidency would be at about a 40-45% approval rating right now. Republicans wouldn't be supportive, and Independents would be grumbling about Iraq.

I think my favorite part of the Bush/Kerry debates was when Bush was telling us not to fall for Kerry's "rhetoric." The way he used (or misused) the word implied that Bush wasn't using rhetoric himself. Never mind the fact that campaigns by their very nature must involve rhetoric, because the whole point is to be "persuasive."

When Bush used the word "rhetoric," he was referring to deception and/or lies. It's ironic that he uses rhetoric in order to accuse his opponent of using rhetoric.

That's been bothering me for over a year now.

Fear and uncertainty surely had roles to play in Trifectaboy's re-election. They somehow managed to convince fence-sitters to fear the alternatives, while somehow convincing the same voters that they *weren't* using fear as a campaign tool.

The swiftboat fabricators were also effective. I recall a conversation with another fellow, who considers himself an independent -- he bought their argument, and felt Kerry was somehow worse than Trifectaboy.

It's unfortunate how emotion and bad information can trump simple logic and facts. :P

Wildcat

Retired Supreme Court Justice O'Connor has also torn into republicans for their assult on civil rights

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12281.htm

I think a still-GOP Congress would have taken great pains to make sure the executive branch didn't have the powers it's currently claiming to have. The outcome would likely have meant no Patriot Act or a far-watered-down version. That, to me, would be a good thing, even if it was happening for doltish reasons.

that's a reasonable analysis, though I doubt that Republicans would let Democrats get to the right of them on fighting terror. There would have been a few cosmetic changes (as was done in the recent vote) but at the first glimmer of terror activities I think Kerry would put the hammer down. He'd have little choice.

Domestically, maybe deficit spending would come down, but that's about it.

I don't think spending would go down but the tax cuts would be tinkered with so revenue would presumably go up--lowering the deficit. So you're correct. Now if rescinding the cuts hurt the growth of the economy it would be a long term negative...but my Mom is an economist so I know just how impossible it is to make good predictions on things like this.

Think about the Dubai deal as another example. Since it's primarily a bureaucratic decision, it would have gone down the same way: Kerry would have warned that we shouldn't dismiss an Arab purchase out of hand, and the opposition party would scream bloody murder over a security risk.

Absolutely right--I suspect (and it's only that) the Democrats would be a bit more supportive of the idea than Republicans would be (or for that matter, have been). The deal would probably go down in flames in this reality as well (unless the media was far more interested in exploring both sides than they were in ours).

I would expect that a Kerry presidency would be at about a 40-45% approval rating right now.

Agreed. One problem Kerry had was that he had no reason to expect any loyalty from his own party. The Republicans would have been after him and more than a few Democrats would be right there with them. Jimmy Carter all over again. It was no fun having a president who was everyone's butt-boy.

Re: Gore. Can't make a well-informed comparison since I didn't have the opportunity to interact with him pre-2000, but in the last couple of years I've both had a relatively small (8-ish person with me sitting right next to him) lunch and a couple of other small group 10-15 minute conversations with him and my opinion of him has gone up significantly. I think he's a lot more relaxed than he was during the 2000 campaign, and if he kept that aspect in another campaign I think he'd do significantly better.

Oh, and he's definitely one-upped Bush in one aspect. He arranged/paid for several evacuation/supply flights into New Orleans immediately post-Katrina...and didn't make any effort to get publicity for such (the only reason I know about it is that one of those conversations happened shortly afterwards and what the state of NO was came up in the conversation..and was initially raised by someone other than him and not in his circle). Far as I can tell, that's more than Bush has done.

Bill Mulligan: As for how it's impossible to believe that John Kerry would have been worse...It's not that hard if you use your imagination. Kerry said he would not pull out of Iraq so I see no change there (one could argue that Al qaeda would have been emboldened by Bush's defeat and increased the attacks; one could equally argue that Bush's loss would have forced the legitimate factions to work harder for a solution out of fear of impending USA pullout. We'll never know).
Luigi Novi: As far as the notion that Al Quaeda gives a rat’s ass as to which party is in power, I think that anyone who would argue this is imprinting their own political (and quite American) political biases on our enemy. Al Quaeda doesn’t give a shit who’s president. Fanatic mass murderers like them will do what they will regardless. They attacked us under Clinton. They attacked us under Dubya. They’ll not be dissuaded because of whoever the current occupant of the Oval Office is.

Oh, and he's definitely one-upped Bush in one aspect. He arranged/paid for several evacuation/supply flights into New Orleans immediately post-Katrina...and didn't make any effort to get publicity for such (the only reason I know about it is that one of those conversations happened shortly afterwards and what the state of NO was came up in the conversation..and was initially raised by someone other than him and not in his circle). Far as I can tell, that's more than Bush has done.

That's because Gore can do it on a small scale. Small scale relief is much easier to organize than trying to deal with the entire region.

I still find it ironic that Homeland Security Director Ridge was once derided for telling people that they should have at least three days worth of supplies on hand in their homes in the event of a catastrophe, because it would likely take that long for the government to get in major relief supplies. In Katrina, it took four.

I still find it ironic that Homeland Security Director Ridge was once derided for telling people that they should have at least three days worth of supplies on hand in their homes in the event of a catastrophe, because it would likely take that long for the government to get in major relief supplies. In Katrina, it took four.

Yes, it is indeed ironic that he underestimated how incompetent the government really is....

Firstly - Bill, thanks for the news of Milosovic's death (hadn't gotten to reading the paper yet, just dumping the ads). If there actually was a person who could be compared to Hitler with near-validity, he may very well have been it. It's good to know that there's now NO chance of him being loosed on the world again.

As far as the "why" of the election... Setting aside the die-hard party loyalists, and those who are predisposed to think the worst of any Democrat barring a preponderance of proof to the contrary, just as some of us are with any Republican... Between this election result, TV ratings for some stupid shows versus some very quality shows, the low attendance for Serenity and other high-quality films, the anti-evolution movements, and other indicators which pop up regularly, I've come to believe that we may have a pretty large amount of stupid people in this country....

You actually believe all these poll numbers?

Sucker!

I've come to believe that we may have a pretty large amount of stupid people in this country....

As the old joke goes (and I'd credit it if I remembered who popularized it) ...

"Think about how dumb the average person is. Now realize that by definition, half the country is even dumber."

TWL

>I wish every state had the "None of the above" option on their ballot.

I've had endless debates as to whether things are better now than fourty or fifty years ago. I just need look at how many people are praying for this option, something unthinkable half a century ago because we seemed to have viable choices for leaders, and I KNOW a wheel's come off somewhere along the way. And that can't be good.

Peter, I could not have said it better myself. As an American I have never felt so tricked and slighted in my life. I voted for Kerry because he had a better plan on dealing with the war. But oh well. 2008 is coming soon.

As regards the Dubai port deal, I don't recall where I read the analysis (might have even been around here somewhere!), but really, Bush & Co. have only themselves to blame for the hysteria.

After all, they've spent the past five years telling us that Arabs are terrorists, and that's why Iraq was a greater threat than North Korea (and never mind the fact that Iraqis are not ethnically Arab). Why should they be surprised when so many Americans react as if they had bought into the bullshit already? Wasn't that what the administration had been counting on right along?

Peter, it's the ports deal. All sorts of Republicans near me abandoned W on that deal. I suspect that's why the approval numbers are dropping further. That's such a dumb deal.

What I don't get is why the Democrats fielded two stiff, cold, virtually UNLIKEABLE candidates.

Is it that hard to find a likable personable Democrat that can tow the party line? Are all Democrats unfeeling robots who can't connect with other human beings in ways any dipshit actor can?

Gore was a boring, tight ass policy wonk, Kerry was picked soley because he was in Vietnam, and people refused to get that his reaction to his experiences turned many people off, coming home from a war and denouncing your supposed brothers in arms as war criminals isn't exactly...y'know liked by most people.

In the end it's the Democrats fault. Both of Bush's races were practically too close to call.

Any half decent candidate from the other party would have won. But two abyssmal candidates couldn't muster the enthusiasm of enough people to beat a guy who most people voted against the first time out, and who barely was re-elected the second time.

And if the Democrats hand it off to Hillary we're GOING to have another Republican President. Anyone would beat her.

And if None Of The Above had been an option more people would have voted, and it probably would have won.

If we gave people the people a way to voice their disdain for the current two parties, I bet the turnout would be 80% of eligable voters.

Everyone I know is put off by the lack of choice, the lack of nuance, and let's not even get into the Dems and Republicans support for projects no rational American wants anymore(The Drug War, for example).

Tim, that "dumb & dumber" quip was originally dreamed up by George Carlin. I saw the HBO special he said it in when he was originally aired.

Lets see..... what was I thinking. I was thinking that the alternative would Really suck. Even though I do not approve of some of the things that Bush is doing now, is there anyone out there really stupid enough to think that Kerry would be better, I mean Really?????

Even though I do not approve of some of the things that Bush is doing now, is there anyone out there really stupid enough to think that Kerry would be better, I mean Really?????

Yes, there are quite a few of us who believe that Kerry would've been better. You might want to read the whole discussion.

And David ... thanks for the info. I should have pegged as Carlin in the first place -- it's certainly his style.

TWL

Oh, and he's definitely one-upped Bush in one aspect. He arranged/paid for several evacuation/supply flights into New Orleans immediately post-Katrina...and didn't make any effort to get publicity for such (the only reason I know about it is that one of those conversations happened shortly afterwards and what the state of NO was came up in the conversation..and was initially raised by someone other than him and not in his circle). Far as I can tell, that's more than Bush has done.

I knew about it as well, from reading press accounts. It took less than a week for the story to come out.

Of course, there is no way of knowing if Gore never intended it to come out...and it doesn't really matter. He deserves credit for his generosity. I would hesitate to set up a "us vs them" kind of thing here since Bush supporters could start giving credit to Bush for every successful rescue that was done by the government in New Orleans and such an argument does little to advance the real issue--what do we do now? Because, in case nobody has noticed, hurricane season is coming up soon. New Orleans is still below sea level. If we started building new levies last year we would still be a decade away from completion. Suggestions?

Suggestions?

Well, as I've said from the start: level the city and get it back to sea level.

Then build the damn levees to the best strength, regardless of cost.

And don't let people live there again until the above two things happen.

It just isn't worth the risk of having another Katrina come along, because the way the last couple of hurricane seasons have been, there WILL be another Katrina sooner rather than later.

If you wanna hear about someone who isn't the "brightest penny in the box," here's a direct quote from my sister, which was immediately echoed by my idiot brother in-law:

"I'm voting for Bush, because we're already getting screwed, so at least I know what I'm getting myself into."

Ugh. I still shudder when I think about it, and the probability the rest of the other people who voted for Bush shared this same mindset.

P.S. Just got done reading "Missing In Action." Fantastic!

Reminds me back during the Election hearing my Granpa and Granma arguing over the Democratic Party. My Grandpa was sick of the Democratic Party and told my Granma refused to vote for Bush. My Granpa then said "God Dammit Wanda! Do you think Truman would have put up with their Shit!"

For all these crys of "Level the city so it never happens again", you do realize there are several coastal city is at the same or greater risk than NOLA?

I believe the classic intelligence of the electorate quote is attributed to Adlai Stevenson;

After a speech, someone comes up to him and says "Mr. Stephenson, that was a wonderful speech. You'll get the vote of every intelligent voter!" To which he replied, "That's not enough, I need a majority."

Posted by Joe McKendrick:

Our choices of leaders are more limited than in many other nations. We are locked into a two-party structure, baked in by single-member districts and an archiac presidential electoral vote system (not representative, but winner takes all, state by state). Ironically, when we go around the world promoting democracy, it's for parliamentary-type systems -- no one talks about setting up an Electoral College-type system.

Actually, the Electoral College is not automatically determined in a "winner takes all" system. The individual states have the right (I'd say "obligation") to determine how they choose to apportion their electoral votes. Almost all states default to the "winner takes all" system as the easiest manner; however, both Maine and Nebraska rely on a "split" form, in which the candidate who wins the majority of the state vote receives only TWO (2) electoral votes automatically, with the remaining electors being determined by the candidate's victory in each House district. To make that easier to understand, Candidate A receives 51% of either state's total vote and Candidate B receives 49% of the total vote. Candidate A automatically wins just 2 electoral votes from that. The state has 3 House districts (as with Nebraska), in which Candidate A wins a slim majority in two districts and Candidate B wins a slightly larger majority in the third district; Candidate A receives 2 electoral votes from the district wins while Candidate B receives 1 electoral vote from his district wins. The final results: Candidate A, 4 electoral votes; Candidate B, 1 electoral vote. (The only significant problem with this system as it stands is that neither Maine nor Nebraska have a significant electoral vote tally, but a state like California, New York or even Texas or Florida could make a significant impact on a Presidential election.)
Also, in most states when you cast your vote for a Presidential candidate, you're actually voting for a predetermined slate of electors (usually decided during state primary elections or selected by each state's Democratic and Republican party leaders) who have "sworn" to support that particular candidate. This has not been entirely foolproof over the years as some electors have abstained (as with a DC elector in 2000) or cast a ballot for a completely different candidate (as in 1972, 1976, and 1988 when 1 elector during each election cast his ballot for a person who was not a Presidential candidate). Of course, these "disgruntled electors" weren't sufficient to sway any of the elections. (Some states do have official laws which bar such electoral "misdoings", but few actually make any effort to prosecute, leaving the matters to the parties which have more leeway to "discipline" party members who stray.)

I never voted Bush at all.

There's a problem, and that is that too many focus on Democrat or Republican. Has it gone unnoticed that there are too many variables to try and section off people in this fifty/fifty duel off? Moderate this, radical that, never mind. If this is about the people, why is it that it's the wealthiest now who run the two parties? As Bill Hicks said, "It's the same guy holding up both puppets!"

Mark this date on your calendar -- this is the date Peter finally lost it. :)

Quite frankly, the choices given in the last election weren't the greatest, and Bush was the only one exhibiting any signs of leadership. He needs, however, to re-present that leadership. He needs to learn how to use some four letter words -- like VETO. He needs to get a better press secretary, and talk more to the public about what's going on himself (because every time he does, it always creates positive results.) He needs to tell people the Dubai deal is with an ally that is 1) training the Iraqis alongside the US and 2) letting us operate air bases in their country so 3) letting them write checks to longshoremen isn't exactly letting them any closer to our secrets. If he'd get back to doing these things, I could get back to using my old tagline again:

Repeal 22. W 2008.

Nivek -
For all these crys of "Level the city so it never happens again", you do realize there are several coastal city is at the same or greater risk than NOLA?

There is a great difference that you're missing: New Orleans is BELOW sea level.

Cities flood, but the water has somewhere to go.

That isn't the case with NO. When the water gets in NO, it either sits there or gets pumped out.

JosephW -
The individual states have the right (I'd say "obligation") to determine how they choose to apportion their electoral votes.

We tried to change that here in Colorado in '04 to something akin to what Maine & Nebraska are doing, but unfortunately failed.

Howard -
and Bush was the only one exhibiting any signs of leadership.

I get the feeling that your definition of leadership, and my definition, aren't even in the same dictionary, much less same page. :)

Bush was the only one exhibiting any signs of leadership

BWAHHH - HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!

Was that when he was declaring "you're either with us or you're against us"?

Of course, I suppose it was leadership when he told the Iraqi insurgents to "BRING IT ON!". And they did.

Mission accomplished.

While I agree that it does sound funny, the fact is, Kerry could not even present fumbling sense of leadership Bush was presenting. Kerry came off as a guy stabbing in the dark-not nuanced and complex (even though I knew folks who bought into that...

Really though, was it the democrat's idea of a joke to send a guy who was a c student at Yale to call another guy who got c's at Yale dumb?

I don't know who they're polling but everyone I know who voted for Bush would still vote the same way. (Good, Bad or Indifferent.)

Are these the same guys who were in charge of the exit polls on election day? hmmmmm

Really though, was it the democrat's idea of a joke to send a guy who was a c student at Yale to call another guy who got c's at Yale dumb?

Did Kerry ever actually call him dumb? Lots of his supporters did, to be sure -- and still do, for that matter -- but I'm not sure Kerry was ever that forthright.

(Which is part of why he lost, IMO. Someone who had the balls to actually say "this guy's a moron and here's the list of ways we know" would have gotten, at the very least, a lot more people crediting him for making bold statements.)

TWL

I don't know who they're polling but everyone I know who voted for Bush would still vote the same way. (Good, Bad or Indifferent.)

Are these the same guys who were in charge of the exit polls on election day? hmmmmm

Presidential approval ratings have nothing to do with whether or not you'd vote for that person, necessarily. If I were polled right now I'd give a disapproval rating to Bush. Doesn't mean I think Kerry would have been better. I don't find the current approval ratings hard to believe at all.

(Which is part of why he lost, IMO. Someone who had the balls to actually say "this guy's a moron and here's the list of ways we know" would have gotten, at the very least, a lot more people crediting him for making bold statements.)

The danger, or course, is that once one says something like that one must forever live in fear of any slip up, mispronunciation, error of fact, whatever, because you will be (justly) CRUCIFIED for it. There's nothing Americans like better than seeing arrogance taken down a peg or two. frankly, I don't think Kerry has the intellectual chops to take the chance.

The danger, or course, is that once one says something like that one must forever live in fear of any slip up, mispronunciation, error of fact, whatever, because you will be (justly) CRUCIFIED for it.

Depends on the reasons given. If the reason given is an inability to speak English, then you're absolutely right. If there's evidence presented in favor of a basic inability to think, I'd like to think (optimistically) that said criticism would allow greater latitude for error.

An inability to re-examine positions is a lack of intellectual ability, IMO -- and that's something far bigger than making the occasional mistake.

Now, it's possible that you're right, and that the great voting public is entirely too daft to see the difference. Thus, our current bread-and-circuses media.

frankly, I don't think Kerry has the intellectual chops to take the chance.

He certainly didn't have the will to take the chance. Or much of any chance.

TWL

"Quite frankly, the choices given in the last election weren't the greatest, and Bush was the only one exhibiting any signs of leadership."

Remember the end of "Animal House?" There's this sequence where one of the guys hip-checks the leader of a marching band out of the way, grabs the baton, and proceeds to lead the band. He deviates from the parade route and the marching band follows him. He heads down a blind alley, leaves the baton there, and quickly makes his way out of the alley. Meantime the marching band, having followed his leadership, has a massive pile up in the dead end alley and winds up collapsed on itself, unable to get out.

I used to think that was funny...

...until Bush's leadership.

PAD

I used to think that was funny...

...until Bush's leadership.

You know, that would make for a GREAT edited video on the net.

I'm surprised nobody's done it already. (And I'd love to find out somebody has done it already.)

Oh, and here's a shocker: Isaac Hayes apparently thinks all religions are created equal... except for his religion of choice, scientology.

I would've voted for Daffy Duck over Bush in the last election because I knew that the current disaster unfolding in Iraq was inevitable and I saw no reason to reward his incompetence with another term.

Unfortunately, Kerry practically ran with the slogan "wouldn't you rather have Daffy Duck than Bush?" with nothing else going for him. That wasn't enough for many other voters.

So much for the "last throes".

One of their debates showed me that Kerry was going to lose.. because he wouldn't throw the elbow. (A West Wing reference)

He had two chances that I remembered.. Bush went with the flip flop thing again.. why not say "I am the only one who is scared that I have to keep explaining to the President of the United States the difference between flip flopping and sticking to your principles?"

Bush made a flippant comment about abortion after Kerry plainly explained his beliefs. Kerry could have easily responded with "Yes, ladies and gentlemen and especially ladies thats what another 4 years will be .. your lives made fun of, joked about, and smugly written off ... the next 4 years could easily see at least one vacancy on the Supreme Court ... the next 4 years could decide the next 30 in the areas of civil rights, privacy, and equality. Four more years? Forget it.

Thats what I would have done.

Until later
John

Given the choice, I'd still vote for Daffy Duck (or John Kerry, or Al Gore, or...) over George W. Bush today.

It's bleepin' simple, folks -- when the airplane has three engines on fire and is doing a bionic nosedive towards terra firma, the first thing you do is get the stupid monkey away from the cockpit and put someone -- anyone -- competent in charge. Quibbling over Daffy vs. Kerry vs. Gore distracts from the fact that the monkey is still in the cockpit, and the ground isn't getting any farther away...

And kudos to PAD for getting right to the point in his traditional two-fisted style, instead of dinking around with polite euphemisms. Wish I'd thought of that.

--R.J.

But that was the problem...we were not GIVEN a competent person...we were given John Kerry. He didn't appear to know how to fly the plane either.

30 percent?! PAD, where are you getting your figures? Are you thinking of polls such as last month's CBS poll that had Bush at 34 percent? Read the fine print in these polls sometime. You'll find that Republicans are routinely undersampled; in the case of the CBS poll, 409 unweighted and 381 weighted Democrats versus 272 unweighted and 289 weighted Republicans.

Also, you might want to go back and look at the approval ratings for some of our highly regarded previous Presidents at their lowest ebb, particularly Reagan and Truman. I think you'll find that these things don't mean a whole lot, either in the short or long run.

-Dave O'Connell

You'll find that Republicans are routinely undersampled;

You'll also find that Republicans will say anything they can to get people to believe that the truth isn't in front of their eyes.

You'll also see that they'll use a single example (in this case, CBS) to try and prove that there's a bias in the media against them.

They need to face facts: Bush's poll numbers SUCK TOTAL ASS.

That, and they never had a problem with these numbers when Bush was sitting pretty.

Zogby put Bush's approval rating at 38% as of 3/6.

According to others:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 36%
ABC/Washington Post: 41%
Fox/Opinion Dynamics: 39%

All taken within the past few weeks. Of course, I'm sure all of them, including one from Fox "News" are part of the evil liberal media conspiracy.

But that was the problem...we were not GIVEN a competent person...we were given John Kerry. He didn't appear to know how to fly the plane either.

Kerry was an unfortunate choice and reflects one of the severe weaknesses of the Dems. For the 40 years, they've yearned for the second coming of Kennedy. But Kennedy's strength was that he had buckets of charisma, while you could combine both Kerry and Dukakis and not have enough charisma to fill a thimble. For their own good, the Dems should impose a moratorium on nominating anyone from Massachusetts for the foreseeable future.

The GOP has a similar problem in that they're yearning for the second coming of Reagan. Many thought the monkey was it, but more and more Republicans seem to be disenchanted with that notion. I think that's unfair. If there's one thing the monkey has down cold, it's the runaway deficit spending of the Reagan era.

Maybe it's just that, when the Gipper ordered the invasion of a weak third world country, it got down over the weekend.

As for what a Kerry administration would have been doing different, that's hard to predict. In 2004, the damage had already been done. The monkey had already dived head first into the quagmire without any plan as to how he'd get us out. Unilaterally pulling out wasn't a viable option then and still isn't now. Maybe Kerry would have listened to advisers with actual combat experience, which in itself would have been a radical departure from the sycophantic chickenhawks the monkey surrounds himself with.

Easier to predict is how the conservatives would have reacted to a Kerry administration. By now, Fox "News" would begin every segment with a "Iraqi Civil" in huge graphics and ominous drum beatings. Meanwhile, the GOP would be holding congressional hearings on how Kerry had managed to "lose" the peaceful Arab utopia that Bush had bequeathed him. Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration.

But not by much.

In response to these two posts:

You'll also find that Republicans will say anything they can to get people to believe that the truth isn't in front of their eyes.

You'll also see that they'll use a single example (in this case, CBS) to try and prove that there's a bias in the media against them.

They need to face facts: Bush's poll numbers SUCK TOTAL ASS.

That, and they never had a problem with these numbers when Bush was sitting pretty.

Posted by Den at March 14, 2006 01:02 PM
Zogby put Bush's approval rating at 38% as of 3/6.

According to others:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 36%
ABC/Washington Post: 41%
Fox/Opinion Dynamics: 39%

All taken within the past few weeks. Of course, I'm sure all of them, including one from Fox "News" are part of the evil liberal media conspiracy.

First of all, let's throw out Zogby as a reliable indicator of anything. Remember, they're the ones responsible for the Election Day debacle---you know, the polls that just happened to indicate a Kerry landslide.

Second, if you look at the range between high and low approval ratings for past presidents, it becomes a lot more difficult to take them seriously. To wit:

Eisenhower 49-79
Kennedy 57-83
Johnson 35-80
Nixon 24-68
Ford 37-71
Carter 21-75
Reagan 35-68
Bush Sr. 32-83

Another source I found has Carter's low at 28 percent (instead of 21), Bush Sr.'s at 29 (instead of 32) and adds that Truman's low was 23(!) and Clinton's was 37.

All of which suggests that these approval ratings are bunk. Who in their right mind would single out Truman as the worst President of the last sixty years?

As for Republicans never having a problem with high approval ratings, do a Yahoo search sometime. You might come across a 2002 Washington Post article by conservative-friendly Howard Kurtz that reads like this:

What got us thinking about this is a fascinating op-ed piece by one of Bush's most influential supporters. On OpinionJournal.com, conservative activist Grover Norquist, the Americans for Tax Reform president who is close to the administration, argues that Bush's sky-high poll numbers are – get this – a bad thing.

That is thinking outside the usual box. Let's take a closer look:

"President Bush's approval rating has remained above 70 percent for nearly a year. Far from being an asset, these approval ratings are a liability that has hurt his agenda.

"Immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Democrats feared and Republicans hoped that Mr. Bush's approval ratings – which jumped from 57 percent to 90 percent – would create political capital that would help the president advance his legislative agenda and elect more Republicans. Both Republican hopes and Democratic fears went unfulfilled. . . .

"Bush made no progress on legislative priorities such as reforming Mexican immigration and giving Americans the option of investing part of their Social Security taxes. A dozen congressional leadership staff members have told me that the president's high approval ratings have not helped him pass any important bills."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15363-2002Aug30?language=printer

Or this National Reviewstory by Byron York, also from 2002:

In a July 2001 interview with National Review Online, Bush pollster Matthew Dowd explained the president's job-approval ratings, which at that time were in the mid-50 percent range. "We're not in an era where a president can get a 70 percent job-approval rating," Dowd said confidently. Then he added a quick afterthought: "absent a major crisis."

Two months later, a major crisis showed just how high the president's ratings could go, and how long lasting they could be. Bush's job approval hit a high of 90 percent in a Gallup poll two weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It stayed in the 80s from October until March 2002. It then stayed in the 70s from March until last month. It was 76 percent at the beginning of July, then 73 percent, then 69 percent in two successive mid-month surveys, and then back to 71 percent. Now, in a poll taken the first week of August, it is 68 percent.

At the same time, the president's job dis-approval rating has been slowly rising. Last September, when Bush hit 90 percent, his job-disapproval rating was an astonishingly low six percent. It stayed in single digits until early December. It did not hit 20 percent until early April 2002, and it did not rise consistently into the 20s until early July. In the newest poll, it is 26 percent.

The trend — from an examination of 38 Gallup surveys taken since September 11 — is clear. The president's job-approval rating has been slowly falling toward a normal range, while his job-disapproval rating has been slowing rising toward a normal range. A 68 percent job-approval rating is still extraordinarily high, but a look at the surveys suggests there is no reason to believe it will not fall to the mid-50 percent range in the next two or three months. Similarly, there is no reason to believe his disapproval rating will not rise to the mid-30 percent range in the same time period — absent, as Matthew Dowd would say, a major crisis.

If the trends continue, Bush will ultimately return to his pre-September 11 standing in the polls. In four surveys taken by Gallup in August 2001, the president's job-approval rating was 55, 57, 57, and 55 percent. In the same polls, his disapproval rating was 35, 35, 34, and 36 percent.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york081402.asp

If I were inclined to turn this into a term paper, I could take more than a few minutes and go back and find some more. And I'd probably come across some pro-Bush high approval ratings gloating as well. But for PAD to throw around the "around 30 percent" ("around 40 percent" would be a more accurate generalization, at least given the figures that have been mentioned in this thread) and rant about it like it's some earth-shattering development rather than the mere continuation of a decades-long trend (you mean you *haven't* heard of the "second-term blues" before?), well let's just say I'm glad Cowboy Pete is waiting for me in the next post to clear the palette.

-Dave O'Connell

Not sure why the italics came out all screwy on that last post, so let's try it again without them. Should be more readable this way.

***

In response to these two posts:

You'll also see that they'll use a single example (in this case, CBS) to try and prove that there's a bias in the media against them.

They need to face facts: Bush's poll numbers SUCK TOTAL ASS.

That, and they never had a problem with these numbers when Bush was sitting pretty.

Posted by Den at March 14, 2006 01:02 PM
Zogby put Bush's approval rating at 38% as of 3/6.

According to others:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 36%
ABC/Washington Post: 41%
Fox/Opinion Dynamics: 39%

All taken within the past few weeks. Of course, I'm sure all of them, including one from Fox "News" are part of the evil liberal media conspiracy.>>

First of all, let's throw out Zogby as a reliable indicator of anything. Remember, they're the ones responsible for the Election Day debacle---you know, the polls that just happened to indicate a Kerry landslide.

Second, if you look at the range between high and low approval ratings for past presidents, it becomes a lot more difficult to take them seriously. To wit:

Eisenhower 49-79
Kennedy 57-83
Johnson 35-80
Nixon 24-68
Ford 37-71
Carter 21-75
Reagan 35-68
Bush Sr. 32-83

Another source I found has Carter's low at 28 percent (instead of 21), Bush Sr.'s at 29 (instead of 32) and adds that Truman's low was 23(!) and Clinton's was 37.

All of which suggests that these approval ratings are bunk. Who in their right mind would single out Truman as the worst President of the last sixty years?

As for Republicans never having a problem with high approval ratings, do a Yahoo search sometime. You might come across a 2002 Washington Post article by conservative-friendly Howard Kurtz that reads like this:

That is thinking outside the usual box. Let's take a closer look:

"President Bush's approval rating has remained above 70 percent for nearly a year. Far from being an asset, these approval ratings are a liability that has hurt his agenda.

"Immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Democrats feared and Republicans hoped that Mr. Bush's approval ratings – which jumped from 57 percent to 90 percent – would create political capital that would help the president advance his legislative agenda and elect more Republicans. Both Republican hopes and Democratic fears went unfulfilled. . . .

"Bush made no progress on legislative priorities such as reforming Mexican immigration and giving Americans the option of investing part of their Social Security taxes. A dozen congressional leadership staff members have told me that the president's high approval ratings have not helped him pass any important bills.">>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15363-2002Aug30?language=printer

Or this National Reviewstory by Byron York, also from 2002:

Two months later, a major crisis showed just how high the president's ratings could go, and how long lasting they could be. Bush's job approval hit a high of 90 percent in a Gallup poll two weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It stayed in the 80s from October until March 2002. It then stayed in the 70s from March until last month. It was 76 percent at the beginning of July, then 73 percent, then 69 percent in two successive mid-month surveys, and then back to 71 percent. Now, in a poll taken the first week of August, it is 68 percent.

At the same time, the president's job dis-approval rating has been slowly rising. Last September, when Bush hit 90 percent, his job-disapproval rating was an astonishingly low six percent. It stayed in single digits until early December. It did not hit 20 percent until early April 2002, and it did not rise consistently into the 20s until early July. In the newest poll, it is 26 percent.

The trend — from an examination of 38 Gallup surveys taken since September 11 — is clear. The president's job-approval rating has been slowly falling toward a normal range, while his job-disapproval rating has been slowing rising toward a normal range. A 68 percent job-approval rating is still extraordinarily high, but a look at the surveys suggests there is no reason to believe it will not fall to the mid-50 percent range in the next two or three months. Similarly, there is no reason to believe his disapproval rating will not rise to the mid-30 percent range in the same time period — absent, as Matthew Dowd would say, a major crisis.

If the trends continue, Bush will ultimately return to his pre-September 11 standing in the polls. In four surveys taken by Gallup in August 2001, the president's job-approval rating was 55, 57, 57, and 55 percent. In the same polls, his disapproval rating was 35, 35, 34, and 36 percent.
>>
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york081402.asp

If I were inclined to turn this into a term paper, I could take more than a few minutes and go back and find some more. And I'd probably come across some pro-Bush high approval ratings gloating as well. But for PAD to throw around the "around 30 percent" ("around 40 percent" would be a more accurate generalization, at least given the figures that have been mentioned in this thread) and rant about it like it's some earth-shattering development rather than the mere continuation of a decades-long trend (you mean you *haven't* heard of the "second-term blues" before?), well let's just say I'm glad Cowboy Pete is waiting for me in the next post to clear the palette.

-Dave O'Connell

So now we've gone from Bush's low approval rating is a fabrication of the evil liberal CBS news conspiracy to it's not a big deal.

Spin, Dave! Spin!

Tell you what, Dave. If those of us who generally agree with Peter agree that he slightly overstated the case in referring to Bush's numbers, will you agree in turn that those numbers are legitimately on the "not at all good" range for any president regardless of party?

TWL

just one thing imagine if you will the next president of the US Jeb Bush

just one thing imagine if you will the next president of the US Jeb Bush

Ford (sensible people): "Run for you life! Make for the hill!"

Arthur (not-sensible people): "What, the rather nice one with all the daffodils?"

If Kerry had won the election, the douche-bag right-wing crap-aganda whores like Limbaugh and Hannity would be blaming the current situation on Kerrys 'lack of leadership' or some other GOP fairy tale.

The only good thing about Bush winning in '04 is that now he is taking the blame for his own fuck-ups.

Worst.
President.
EVER.

omnidragon wrote: just one thing imagine if you will the next president of the US Jeb Bush

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

Didn't Nostrodomus warn us about brothers leading a great "empire"? ::shudders::

Alright, now I don't need to watch the scary movie I rented. I'm freaked out enough!

just one thing imagine if you will the next president of the US Jeb Bush

We would have to pray to no woman with media-savy parents falls into a PVS, because that would bring the country to a screeching halt.

Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 11, 2006 06:57 PM

None of the above was not an option.

As for how it's impossible to believe that John Kerry would have been worse...It's not that hard if you use your imagination.

*****************************************

Once again I find myself in sharp disagreement with you and still admiring your reasoning skills. Damn you, Bill Mulligan!

There are indeed risks in every roll of the dice. But I voted for John Kerry exactly because I thought he was an unknown quantity.

During W.'s first term, as he began pushing us towards an unnecessary and dangerous war with Iraq, I realized he wasn't merely incompetent, but was also dangerous. I believe recent events support that assertion. For example, W.'s decision to remove Saddam from power meant removing the force that was holding in check factions that aren't real good at getting along. W.'s failure to provide for adequate post-war security allowed those factions to start running amok. Iraq is now on the brink of a bloody civil war that could further destabilize an already shaky region of the world.

John Kerry, on the other hand, represented to me a chance, however slight, of steering our country away from the dangerous path W. has taken. Perhaps Kerry would have handled our involvement in Iraq more skillfully, perhaps not.

Certainly, Kerry's campaign didn't fill me with confidence, but people can grow into the presidency. Bill Clinton had a rocky start during his first term until he found his chops. He bounced back, and handily won a second term. Had he not fooled around with Monica, I think he would've been riding high when he left office.

Would Kerry have similarly grown into office? I don't know. Kerry lacks Cliton's communicative skills, to be sure. But I was certain W. was leading us down a path far to dangerous to trod. So I rolled the dice on Kerry.

Unfortunately, Kerry crapped out. So we'll never know what would have happened.

Bill, I don't find that to be an unresonable opinion. I'm not by nature much a gambler so I'd be reluctant to take a chance on someone as a president but I can easily see where someone else would.

A good clue to how well Kerry would have done will be in whether or not he can buck the odds and become a contender in 2008. It would require a degree of political skill I haven't seen from him but he may surprise us. It wouldn't be the first time a tough loss made someone shape up and improve.

I'm not big on sticking with "the devil you known" as a political philosophy. The monkey had proven that he was incompetent in handling the Iraq situation and has done nothing since the 2004 election to counter that image. Kerry might has been better, worse, or the same, but keeping the monkey at the controls virtually guarranteed that we'd be right where we are now with Iraq "on the verge" of a civil war.

>

Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse...?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 15, 2006 08:54 AM

Bill, I don't find that to be an unresonable opinion.

*****************************

GRRRRRRRRR!!!!

If you don't stop being so damned civil I'll... I'll...!

Crap. I got nothing.

Never mind.

Posted by: Den at March 15, 2006 09:06 AM

The monkey had proven that he was incompetent in handling the Iraq situation and has done nothing since the 2004 election to counter that image.

***************************************

Dude, monkeys are the coolest animals! You can dress them up in people-clothes and train them to walk around and do people stuff, and then, with perfect comedic timing, you can have them throw a tantrum and give people raspberries and jump all over the place and have crap-fights. There is no animal that is more entertaining than a monkey.

So please don't disparage monkeys by wrongly identifying our sitting president as one of them.

Steve said:
"Worst.
President.
EVER."

I hope you are right, America still has few years left in her, so I hope the next president or two before Amerika turns into a Fascist Theocracy don't prove you wrong....

Bill, if all the monkey-in-chief had done was fall off his Segway and fling his feces at the press, I'd find him endlessly entertaining, but the monkey had to go and make a mess in Iraq, so I don't find him entertaining anymore.

Posted by Den at March 15, 2006 09:58 AM

Bill, if all the monkey-in-chief had done was fall off his Segway and fling his feces at the press, I'd find him endlessly entertaining, but the monkey had to go and make a mess in Iraq, so I don't find him entertaining anymore.

************************************

Well, that was my point. I was trying to say that George W. Bush rates below monkeys in my book. Far below.

But I guess if I have to explain the joke, it wasn't very good.

Survey: Republicans Happier Than Democrats

Guess ignorance really is bliss.

Here's one thing that's not being blamed on Der ChimpenReichsFuhrer, Bu$Hitler:

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/russian_blames_global_warming_on_1908_tunguska_event_10205.html

Freedom of Speech?

I posted a handful of comments at DailyKos.com which, given our differences in political views, clashed with the views of the Usual Suspects. I used no profanity or personal attacks on the posters. But, because I didn't drink the DailyKos Purple Kool-Aid, I was banned from posting comments. Hmmmm, I thought that Liberals, I mean, Progressives, were supposed to be all about, gee, how should I put this...Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations and that only the hateful Reich-Wing Re-Thug-li-KKKans would ban someone from posting their ideas. Darn. I hate being wrong.

(It is because it had too many URLs attached and got caught in the filter not because of the topic-One of the Moderators)

Guess ignorance really is bliss.

Or paranoia really is misery.

All joshing aside, I don't give much credence to those kinds of surveys. I could see where the celebration of victimhood that characterizes too much of leftist thought could be less than conducive to a sense of happiness though.

I'm just amazed that cat owners are as happy as dog owners.

Hmmmm, I thought that Liberals, I mean, Progressives, were supposed to be all about, gee, how should I put this...Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations and that only the hateful Reich-Wing Re-Thug-li-KKKans would ban someone from posting their ideas. Darn. I hate being wrong.

In fairness to the Dailykos gang, the site has never pretended to be a place for the free exchange of ideas. There are places to go for debates, kos is more for cheerleading and mutual support.

I mean, I think it's cool that PAD allows people who disagree with him to be a part of the blog family but that's not for everyone.

I'm just amazed that cat owners are as happy as dog owners.

I've always thought that cats were much keener judges of character. Look around -- how many politicians have dogs? How many have cats? That's not, in my view, a coincidence. Cats have a keen gift for "yes, you talk big, but what are you actually DOING to help me, you sod?" attitudes, and I find it refreshing.

Of course, I have three cats, so I may be a tad biased...

TWL

Of course, I have three cats, so I may be a tad biased...

Tim, here's my dark secret...so do I. And I love 'em. But if they knew that they'd be totally impossible to be around.

I hate being wrong.

You must have a lot of hate then.

"Hmmmm, I thought that Liberals, I mean, Progressives, were supposed to be all about, gee, how should I put this...Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations and that only the hateful Reich-Wing Re-Thug-li-KKKans would ban someone from posting their ideas. Darn. I hate being wrong."

I see. So while Conservatives wouldn't hesitate to slam me if I insinuate they move in oppressive lockstep, you don't hesitate to snipe at my beliefs--here on a forum where you ARE given free rein to speak--based on the actions of others who don't share my philosophies about discourse. Even though I have freely acknowledged in the past that liberals can be just as aggressive in censorship as conservatives, and that it's a sentiment I do not share.

I could, of course, try to impugn your philosophies by holding up the rantings of people who are even more extremist buffoons than you and say you're just as bad. As soon as I find one, I'll let you know. Could be a long search, though.

PAD

Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 16, 2006 09:18 PM

Of course, I have three cats, so I may be a tad biased...

Tim, here's my dark secret...so do I. And I love 'em. But if they knew that they'd be totally impossible to be around.

************************************

My girlfriend and I have two cats. They really are remarkable creatures. I mean, one of them went blind very suddenly about a month ago, and yet he adjusted to it almost immediately. He gets around amazingly well using his other senses and his memory of where things are. I hate to use such a cliched term, but he really is "handi-capable."

Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 16, 2006 09:07 PM

All joshing aside, I don't give much credence to those kinds of surveys. I could see where the celebration of victimhood that characterizes too much of leftist thought could be less than conducive to a sense of happiness though.

*****************************************

I am a "leftist," but I, like you, am not fond of the "celebration of victimhood." The elevation of victimhood comes from the extreme left, and I believe (but cannot prove, admittedly) that those extremists are a minority who make their numbers look bigger by being loud. And since the media loves noisy people, they're the leftists that get the most press.

As I've gotten older, though, I've found myself adopting some conservative views. I guess my philosophy today would be best summed up as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Although even that's a bit simplistic. I do believe our government is involved in regulating and/or subsidizing things where it has no business doing so. But I also remember when the savings and loan industry was deregulated; financial misconduct ensued and the S&L bailout cost taxpayers a bundle. So the issue of where the government should be involved and where it should not is, in my view, complicated.

Is there a word for me? "Libertarian?" "Moderate?" "Confused?" Don't know and don't care. I like to think of myself as an individual who chooses his views based on what seems reasonable, rather than what "side" I'm supposed to be on. I suspect that even though I still lean left and you seem to lean right, you choose your views in much the same way.

By the way, you mentioned in another thread that you teach 9th grade. Do you teach history, by any chance? You're knowledge of past and current events makes me think you'd be a natural, but of course things are not always as they appear on the surface.

I had a the same history teacher for the 9th and 10th grade and he was fantastic. He would always remind us as we were taking notes that we needed to do more than memorize names and dates. He challenged us to ask, "So what?" In the process, I learned to see that history was not merely a litany of factoids but a "story" where what came before helped shape what is, and where what is shapes what is to be.

Ah, who am I kidding? I just plain talk to much. Wake up, Bill. I'm done blathering.

PAD, I don't have time to read all the comments this second, I just want to say that that is the best rant ever! Congragulations. *bow*

So, Bush's numbers are down. Meaning, if they are valid in any way, that many people that voted for him now think he's doing a bad job.

I'm with PAD. I'll go one further and say "so what?" Low numbers don't mean you get fired. We can't not elect him in the next election, so he's sitting totally immune and insulated from any criticism. And while publically, many GOP members speak against him, they'll probably act to protect him from a congressional censure, which is the very least action we can take against him.

To those that voted for him, but are not unhappey with his performance, I'd say something like "you guys elected him, you don't really get to complain about what he does now," except that people are dieing, our rights are eroding, the debt continues to climb, and every week, seemingly, things get worse.

I saw a study last week that claimed that stay-at-home moms were happier than feminists.

Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, cats are just unfinished violin strings. I'm a dog lover all the way and I'm much happier because of it. Cats are creepy little buggers and everytime I see one stare a me, I know he's just imagining the day when I slip in the shower and break my neck so he can eat me. Why the hell would I want such evil creature in my home? I'd rather have a pet that actually likes me.

Pat Buchanan is a cat owner. End of story.

And Bobb, the monkey's low poll numbers don't mean anything to his own election ambitions, but since the GOP in Congress are tied to him, it means we're going to see a lot more of them distance themselves from him, (See: Dubai ports deal), much the way that congressional Democrats distanced themselves from Clinton in '98. That also means that you can forget anymore bold proposals like privatizing social security. The monkey's out of political capital.

"And Bobb, the monkey's low poll numbers don't mean anything to his own election ambitions, but since the GOP in Congress are tied to him, it means we're going to see a lot more of them distance themselves from him, (See: Dubai ports deal), much the way that congressional Democrats distanced themselves from Clinton in '98. That also means that you can forget anymore bold proposals like privatizing social security. The monkey's out of political capital."

Too true. The flip side of that is that they have 2 years to create that distance. The paranoid in me says Bush is intentionally tanking his numbers in order to allow the "new" Republicans to ride to the rescue. The Democrats seem pretty quiet on the "we're better than Bush/GOP" front, leaving it wide open for the GOP to come in and replace the old regime with a new regime I'm just as likely to dislike.

I'm a cat person....although, with a 5 month old around, I'm less of a cat person than I was 6 months ago. I might be a puppy person now. Can you get dogs that stay puppies?

Posted by Den at March 17, 2006 02:55 PM

Cats are creepy little buggers and everytime I see one stare a me, I know he's just imagining the day when I slip in the shower and break my neck so he can eat me.

***************************************

Yeah, and some people are scared to death of clowns. Everyone's got their quirks, I guess.

My girlfriend and I have two cats. They really are remarkable creatures.

What I like best about them is that they become litter box trained in a very short amount of time. The ability to dispose of ones own feces is a trait I greatly admire in both man and beast.

Bill, the proper term for you is "thinking". I'm a bit suspicious of anyone who is across the board liebral or conservative; makes me wonder if they just want to save the time it takes to actually think things though. Of course, it's possible to end up solidly in one column or another, I suppose, but I have to respect someone who breaks with the stereotype, even if I don't agree with the the particular position--Nat Hentoff's pro-life views, for example.

By the way, you mentioned in another thread that you teach 9th grade. Do you teach history, by any chance? You're knowledge of past and current events makes me think you'd be a natural, but of course things are not always as they appear on the surface.

No, I teach science, but I slip as much history into it as I can get away with. Wouldn't a History Of Science class be GREAT? I've toyed with creating one and offering to teach it during my planning period, if they wouldn't let me otherwise. I love history. For some reason, most of the kids here hate it and say it's taught badly by most of the teachers. I don't get it. How can you not make history entertaining? It's full of dead people and sex.

I wonder if the State tests are more about names and dates than about the stories. That would be stupid but not surprising.

Bobb,
To those that voted for him, but are not unhappey with his performance, I'd say something like "you guys elected him, you don't really get to complain about what he does now," except that people are dieing, our rights are eroding, the debt continues to climb, and every week, seemingly, things get worse.

Even if those things aren't happening it would be a mistake to claim that somehow people have lost the ability to complain. Says who?

I saw a study last week that claimed that stay-at-home moms were happier than feminists.

Some of my dearest friends are feminists but they would not be the very first people I would go to for a good cheer up session, at least not the radical ones. They tell jokes like "How many underpaid Latino children engaged in stoop labor did it atke to make that Grande Mocha Latte you're sipping?" and when I say how many, they answer 7. I don't get it.

Pat Buchanan is a cat owner. End of story.

Hitler had a dog! Ha! I see your Pat Buchanan and raise you one Hitler!

And cats like you just fine, so long as you feed them and pay attention to them whenever they demand it. In this way they prepare you for dating.

(All joking aside, I think that every boy should have a dog. Girls, it seems to me, have a better intrinsic concept of unconditional love. Boys need to experience it and, despite their sadly deficiant feces disposal skills, dogs are unmatched in the unconditional love department).

The paranoid in me says Bush is intentionally tanking his numbers in order to allow the "new" Republicans to ride to the rescue.

I would doubt it. With his reputation for being ultra-competitive, I don't think he'd deliberately make himself look bad just to boost his party. And I'm sure the party faithful believes that a successful and popular administration is a better way to win the next presidential election.

My paranoid side tells me this: While the 22nd amendment limits a person to two terms as president, it has no limits on how many terms they many serve as vice-president. Dick could still be running the government in 2009.

The Democrats seem pretty quiet on the "we're better than Bush/GOP" front, leaving it wide open for the GOP to come in and replace the old regime with a new regime I'm just as likely to dislike.

I'd like to believe that they're biding their time until they can unveil their new list of goals and their strategy on how to accomplish it, but then I remember that they're the Democrats.

Can you get dogs that stay puppies?

The stumbling block is how to keep them small and cute, but eliminate teething at the same time.

Hitler was known to beat his dogs regularly, so I wouldn't put him as a dog-lover. He probably wished he had a cat.

Yeah, and some people are scared to death of clowns. Everyone's got their quirks, I guess.

I'm not afraid of cats, I just believe that they're inherently evil creatures, right down to their tiny black hearts.

Cats are creepy little buggers

You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)

There's an old saying (possibly Mark Twain, but I can't recall) -- "When a dog licks you, it is to demonstrate his affection. When a cat licks you, it is very probably to see how you taste."

Pat Buchanan is a cat owner.

And Dubya is a dog owner.

Frankly (and I know you were semi-joking with this), Buchanan might almost support my point. Say what you like about Buchanan (and believe me, I've said plenty), he's not even remotely hypocritical. He's a frickin' loon, but he's a sincere one -- and I honestly think cats pick up on hypocrisy more than anything.

Wouldn't a History Of Science class be GREAT?

Oh, hell yeah. I've toyed with the idea of creating one as well -- and a colleague of mine at my last school, when creating the astronomy elective, made the prerequisite a particular history course rather than anything in the sciences.

If I move away from teaching physics, history of science is a strong possibility. (By the same token, if I ever leave teaching, science journalism is a very high-interest zone for me.)

TWL

Oh you'd be great at that. But it'd be a real loss to the teaching profession. Finding good physics teachers is well nigh impossible here. If teh one we have ever leaves they might make me teach it and I will almost certainly have to kill myself.

Oh you'd be great at that. But it'd be a real loss to the teaching profession.

Thanks -- it would, of course, be nicer if more of my students agreed with that from week to week. :-)

It's also sort of a question of "do I want to reach a large number of people, or a small number of people really well?" If the former, then science writing (or textbook writing) would be the way to go; if the latter, then teaching (we hope) makes more sense.

This is all pretty much hypothetical in the short term anyway, as I just got my contract for next year. :-)

TWL
90 mins. to new Who and counting...

But Peter! Think of the children!

Didn't read any of the other comments.

Maybe next time you Democrats will actually nominate somebody worth a crap.

I mean ... John F'N Kerry? Seriously?

Posted by Josh "Starving Writer" Lothridge at March 18, 2006 09:55 PM

Maybe next time you Democrats will actually nominate somebody worth a crap.

I mean ... John F'N Kerry? Seriously?

*******************************************

Yes, but there were plenty of Republicans who would have made better candidates than George W. Bush. John McCain is but one example that comes to mind.

In fact, even though I am a Democrat, I would have strongly considered voting for McCain. Unlike a lot of putative conservatives, I believe McCain actually cares about the principles of conservatism. And while I tend to lean to the left, I am in agreement with some conservative ideas.

I certainly don't consider W. to be a true conservative. Running up the deficit, and unnecessarily invading a foreign nation don't strike me as matching conservative ideals.

Moreover, I don't think W. would have won in 2000 if his opponent hadn't been carrying the baggage of the troubled Clinton presidency. Or if the country hadn't been so damned complacent about everything at the time.

And I don't think W. has ever lived up to the mythology surrounding him. For instance, the refrain that "with W. you know what you're getting because he doesn't flip-flop" just doesn't square with reality. W. made some promises about the environment before he took office, and then reversed himself when he took office. Worse, he had Christie Whitman fall on her sword for him, rather than facing the heat himself. And the justification for the Iraq war has been somewhat chameleon-like. It went from WMD's to the flowering of democracy. W. only admitted his mistakes when his poll numbers forced his hand.

How about the refrain "he's got the qualities of a strong leader?" A strong leader wouldn't have continued reading to children upon learning that a second plane had hit the world trade center. It may seem nit-picky to you; after all, W.'s delay of a few minutes probably didn't make a heck of a lot of difference given the chaos on that day. But when you're a leader, your actions have symbolic value. W. failed in that regard.

Also, he should have gotten back to Washington, D.C. more swiftly after the 9/11 attacks. Was W. in danger? Certainly. But JFK refused to leave D.C. during the Cuban missile crisis, even though the Capitol was certainly first on the list of the Soviet's targets.

And Iraq has been one tactical blunder after another. For instance, as our troops swept through Iraq during the initial invasion, they failed to secure many arms depots. That's because W. failed to commit enough troops to secure our rear flanks as our troops swept through Iraq towards Bagdad. Securing the rear is really the most basic of military tactics. But W. refused to heed the counsel of experienced military leaders, and now we're paying the price for it.

And Katrina? W. failed to assign a member of his own staff to oversee the disaster response, as any good president would have done. That blunder helped contribute to the Department of Homeland Security's failure to designate Katrina an "incident of national significance" -- a designation required to mobilize federal forces -- until 36 hours after Katrina made landfall.

Would Kerry have made a better president? I really don't know. He certainly ran a crappy and uninspiring campaign. His message regarding Iraq was garbled at best. But really, neither party has distinguished itself in the last eight years. It may feel good to point the finger and say "you Democrats suck," but it doesn't accomplish much.

Maybe PAD intuited the results of the Pew Research Center poll of March 8-12 (courtesy of the Syracuse Post-Standard) - 33% approval rating (vs. 50% in Jan 2005). It does show Bush still pretty high among Republicans (73%, vs. 89% in 1/05), and still pretty strong among the Bush voters who inspired this thread - 68%, down from 92% - bringing me back to my comment about the number of stupid people again ... ;) (Thanks for the quotes regarding that, BTW, people; torn on whether to be bolstered or depressed by them ... :) ) (Interestingly, approval among "white Evangelicals", the other specifically broken-down group, was found to have dropped from 72% to 54%.)

The poll also asked "Which one word is the best description of President Bush?"

February 2005 Top Responses: honest, good, integrity, arrogant

March 2006: incompetent, good, idiot, liar

Honestly, I'm surprised that more of the 2005 weren't negative; but, maybe the problem really has been that it (somehow) took a lot of people until NOW to realize that Bush just hasn't been a very good president.

PAD said: "Jeez, people. A little forethought next time, okay? That's all I'm asking."

A lot of forethought is why we're saying President Bush instead of President Kerry.

Thank goodness.

If people really paid a lot of attention to approval ratings, then comic books that are critically acclaimed wouldn't get cancelled would they?

Posted by NovaFan at March 20, 2006 10:45 PM

A lot of forethought is why we're saying President Bush instead of President Kerry.

Thank goodness.

******************************************

I've acknowledged my doubts about John Kerry's ability to lead this country. But any objective observer would have to conclude that we're losing the war in Iraq right now. Iran is going nuclear. Katrina was a textbook example of mismanagement. The federal deficit is ballooning.

The Republicans control the presidency and both houses of Congress, so it's hard to pin the blame for this mess on anyone else. At the same time the Democrats have been opportunistic at best, preying on W.'s weaknesses without offering an true vision for getting out of this mess.

Sorry, but no one on either side of the political aisle has cause to be smug right now.

Thank you, Dipshit Dubya Bush.

Now we've got North Korea claiming that they can make a preemptive strike on the US, and they say they have the ability to do so.

Sorry, but no one on either side of the political aisle has cause to be smug right now.

I would have to agree with that assessment. I still think the 2000 election was Gore's to lose. People's perception of the economy was still strong and we had a relative period of peace. Of course, we now know that both cases were just the calm before the storm, but that's hindsight. Gore should have been able to campaign, "I'll keep the good times coming but w/o the Clinton moral baggage," but he blew if with his pseudo-populist rhetoric.

And we can whine about Florida all day, but if Gore had managed to carry his home state of Tennessee, that would have been moot.

Bush was also vulnerable in 2004 (as evidenced by the razor-thin his popular vote margin), but Kerry failed to capitalize on that either.

Den, I agree with most of your post but was Bush's popular vote margin really "razor-thin"? He won by what, 3 million votes? You could make a better argument that the electoral vote was essentially close, even though Bush won 286-251. Had Ohio flipped Kerry would have squeaked by.

3 million votes may seem like a lot, but with a total of 122,000,000 votes cast, it comes down to Bush winning the percentage of the popular vote 50.73% vs. Kerry's 48.37% (source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf). That's a margin of victory of less than 2%. Not all that impressive considering the America people's historical reluctance to not switch teams during wartime.

Incidentally, Nader won less than 0.4% of the popular vote and that was the largest showing of any of the third party candidates, so his impact on the election was virtually negligible.

Oh, and in the end, Kerry only had 250 electoral votes because one of Minnesota's electors cast a vote for Dean. But yeah, had he flipped Ohio, he would be president now, but that wasn't going to happen. The margin there wasn't as close as Florida's was in 2000.

Considering also that he lost Colordado by only 100,000 votes, Florida by 400,000, Iowa by 10,000 and so on, there were a lot of areas that had he done just a little better, 2004 would have had a different outcome. But it's all moot. Kerry ran on strategy that was basically, "I'm not George W. Bush" (loved that Daily Show fake campaign ad), and that wasn't enough for many voters. People want a reason to vote FOR a candidate, not to vote AGAINST their opponent.

I keep hearing that Kerry had something like 13 million left in the bank on election day. Obviously hindsight is easy but might not a 13 million dollar ad buy in Ohio in the last week been a smart move? Why would you want to have ANY money left? (Unless you were sure you would lose and wanted to save it for the next fight.)

I don't know. Maybe he thought he didn't need to spend it. On the other hand, it took John Glenn something like ten years to pay off the campaign debts from his short-lived presidential campaign, so maybe Kerry was just being overly cautious.